note

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behaviors. It lists supported actions but does not explain side effects or prerequisites beyond what's in the schema. For example, 'delete requires confirm=True' is in schema but not in description. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond action names.

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?

The description is concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence provides useful context without unnecessary detail.

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?

Given 6 parameters and CRUD operations, the description is minimal. Although output schema exists and schema descriptions are complete, the description does not summarize parameter dependencies (e.g., note_id required for update/delete) or provide a high-level workflow. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are already well-documented. The description does not add any additional meaning to the parameters beyond listing the supported actions, which are already in the schema's action parameter description. No extra value.

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?

The description clearly states it manages notes in a notebook and is a unified tool for all note operations. This distinguishes it from sibling notebook_* tools which manage notebooks themselves. The verb 'manage' and resource 'notes' are specific.

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?

The description says 'unified tool for all note operations' implying it should be used for note CRUD. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid using it (e.g., for notebook-level operations) or mention alternatives like notebook_create for notebook management. No usage context beyond the action itself.

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