note_finding

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that this is a persistent memory write, that links require exact ids, and that content must be graph-grounded, but it says nothing about permissions, whether writes are append-only or deduplicated, or how tenant scoping affects visibility.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, zero waste, with the core action and its linking requirement front-loaded and the content-fidelity constraint placed last as a qualifier. Nothing is padded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is too thin. It omits the role of tenant, the shape of any returned identifier, and safety/visibility context an agent needs before writing to shared memory.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description is the only source of meaning. It partially compensates by clarifying 'text' (a short finding) and 'about' (people/module ids, exact), but the 'tenant' parameter is entirely unmentioned in both schema and description, leaving a required-capable parameter undocumented.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: save a finding to memory, with the linking target named (people/modules by exact id). It is clear what the tool does and how it differs in kind from the read-only analysis siblings, but it never names or contrasts with its natural counterpart, recall, so an agent must infer the write/read pairing.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Implies the usage context (record findings produced by graph analysis) and constrains content with 'Only write what the graph showed,' but gives no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites, and no routing to or from recall. Guidance is implied rather than stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.