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

No annotations are present, and the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as whether blocks are appended to existing content, the order of operations, or any side effects. The tool's mutability and safety profile are completely unclear.

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 extremely short (two characters), but it is not effective conciseness—it fails to convey useful information. It is under-specified rather than efficiently informative.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and three required parameters with zero schema coverage, the description is completely inadequate. It provides no context about return values, side effects, or expected behavior for an AI agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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%, putting the burden on the description to explain parameters. However, the description does not describe any of the three parameters (guid, blocks, confirm), leaving their purpose and constraints entirely unspecified.

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 '追加块' is a minimal phrase in Japanese meaning 'add block' or 'append block', which vaguely hints at the tool's function but lacks English clarity and does not specify what a 'super note block' is or how this tool differs from siblings like 'replace-super-note-block'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'replace-super-note-block' or 'delete-super-note-block'. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it.

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

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

No annotations are available, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It gives no information about side effects (e.g., file storage, permissions, overwrite behavior), error conditions, or response format.

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 extremely short (3 Chinese characters), but this is underspecification rather than conciseness. It omits critical information that would be expected in a single-sentence description.

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 the complexity (6 parameters, no schema explanations, no annotations, no output schema), the description is entirely inadequate. It provides no context for how the tool fits into the workflow or what constitutes a successful invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain parameters. It does not mention any of the six parameters (guid, mime, confirm, fileName, filePath, maxBytes), leaving their purposes entirely to the agent's inference.

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 '加附件' (add attachment) essentially restates the tool name 'attach-file', providing no additional specificity. It distinguishes from sibling tools only by the resource type (file vs note/notebook), but the description itself is tautological.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool, what prerequisites are needed (e.g., note existence), or how it differs from related tools like 'replace-note-enml' or 'export-note-resource'.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention that the tool requires a confirm parameter, whether it is destructive, or how it modifies notes. The behavior is entirely opaque.

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 extremely concise but at the expense of clarity. Under-specification does not count as effective conciseness. It lacks essential information.

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 the tool has two required parameters, no output schema, and many siblings, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain the tool's purpose, parameters, or how it fits with other tools.

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%, but the description adds no meaning to the parameters. It does not explain the 'guid' or 'confirm' fields, leaving the agent to infer from the schema alone.

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 '清正文' is garbled and fails to clearly state the tool's purpose. It appears to be a tautology of the name but is not informative. The name suggests clearing note content, but the description provides no specific verb or resource, and does not distinguish from siblings like replace-note-enml or delete-note.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description is too short to offer any context for selection among the many sibling tools.

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

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether it duplicates resources, permissions, or timestamps.

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?

Extremely concise (one word) but underspecified; the brevity sacrifices clarity and usefulness.

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?

With three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is completely insufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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%, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters (guid, title, notebookGuid). Their meaning must be inferred from names alone.

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 'clone note' indicates the action and resource but lacks specificity on what cloning entails (e.g., copies content, metadata, resources) and does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'create-super-note' or 'delete-note'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives, no prerequisites or context provided.

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

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

No annotations are provided, and the description gives no information about side effects, permissions, or behavior (e.g., whether it overwrites an existing notebook).

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?

While short, the description is under-specified and fails to convey essential information, making it not concise but deficient.

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?

With 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete, leaving the agent without critical information to use the tool correctly.

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%, and the description does not explain the purpose of the 'name' or 'stack' parameters, nor any constraints or formats.

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 '建本' is essentially a tautology of the tool name 'create-notebook', providing no additional meaning or distinction from sibling tools.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update-notebook or delete-notebook. The description does not mention prerequisites or context.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the action (create stack) without disclosing side effects (e.g., does it require existing resources?), permissions, or return behavior. This is minimal but not misleading.

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 extremely short but at the expense of being informative. It is under-specified, not concise—valuable sentences are absent entirely. The single Chinese word does not earn its place.

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 the tool has 3 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides virtually no context. The agent cannot understand what the tool does, what the parameters mean, or what outcome to expect. This is critically incomplete.

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%, and the description adds no meaning to the three parameters (name, notebookGuid, confirm). The purpose of "confirm" and whether "notebookGuid" is mandatory or optional is entirely ambiguous. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 is a tautology ("建组" means "create stack" in Chinese), restating the tool name without adding any specific verb-resource relationship or distinguishing it from siblings. It does not clarify what a stack is or how it differs from a notebook, giving the agent no useful purpose information.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings like "move-notebook-to-stack" and "delete-stack" exist, but the description offers no context for choosing this tool instead.

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

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

No annotations or description disclose behavioral traits such as creation behavior, error conditions, or side effects.

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?

Extremely short but critically underspecified; this is omission rather than conciseness.

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 tool with 3 parameters, 2 required, no output schema, and many siblings, the description provides no useful context.

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 has 0% description coverage and the description adds no meaning to the parameters (title, blocks, notebookGuid).

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?

Description '建超笔' is a tautology that restates the tool name in Chinese, providing no explanation of the tool's function or distinction from siblings.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like append-super-note-blocks or update-super-note.

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

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

No annotations are present, and the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as whether deletion is reversible, whether associated data is removed, or any authorization requirements. Given the existence of 'expunge-note' as a sibling, behavioral context is critical.

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 extremely brief (3 characters), which is under-specification rather than concise. It does not earn its place by adding valuable information.

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 deletion tool with two required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain side effects, return values, or safety considerations, which are essential for correct agent behavior.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds no meaning beyond the parameter names (guid, confirm). The purpose of the 'confirm' parameter (e.g., must be true to delete) is not explained, leaving the agent guessing.

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 '删笔记' is a tautology that simply restates the tool name 'delete-note' in Chinese. It provides no specific verb or resource distinction, nor does it differentiate from sibling tools like delete-notebook, delete-note-resource, expunge-note, etc.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as expunge-note (permanent deletion) or delete-note-resource. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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

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

No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether deletion is permanent, what authorization is needed, or what side effects occur. For a destructive action, this is insufficient.

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?

While extremely concise at one word, the description sacrifices all meaningful content. Conciseness should support clarity, not replace it.

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 the destructive nature, four parameters (three required), and a rich set of sibling tools, the description is completely inadequate. No output schema is provided, and no context is added beyond the tool name.

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?

The description '删本' adds no meaning beyond the input schema. With 0% schema description coverage, all four parameters (guid, force, confirm, confirmGuid) remain unexplained, leaving the agent without guidance on how to invoke the tool correctly.

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 '删本' is a tautology, essentially restating the tool name 'delete-notebook' in Chinese. It fails to specify what a 'notebook' is or how this differs from sibling tools like delete-note or delete-stack.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like delete-note, delete-stack, or remove-notebook-from-stack. The description gives no context for appropriate usage.

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

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

No annotations provided. Description implies a destructive action (delete) but does not disclose behavioral traits like confirmation behavior, reversibility, permissions needed, or side effects. The schema has a 'confirm' boolean, but the description doesn't explain its role.

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?

Extremely short (2 Chinese characters) but at the cost of clarity. It is under-specified rather than concisely informative.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 4 undocumented parameters, the description is severely incomplete. An agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without external clues.

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 has 4 parameters (guid, hash, confirm, resourceGuid) with 0% description coverage. The description adds no meaning to any parameter, leaving agents to guess their purpose and format.

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?

Description '删资源' means 'delete resource', but it's vague—does not specify what kind of resource (e.g., file attachment vs. note itself). Sibling tools like 'delete-note' and 'export-note-resource' suggest it's related to note resources, but the description lacks specificity to differentiate.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs. siblings like 'delete-note' or 'delete-notebook'. No context about prerequisites, alternatives, or conditions.

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

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether deleting a stack cascades to notebooks, what confirm does, or any prerequisite conditions.

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?

While very concise, the description is under-specified and fails to provide meaningful content. Conciseness without substance is not beneficial.

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 the destructive nature of the tool, the lack of output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain consequences or return behavior.

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 0%; the description adds no meaning to the parameters name and confirm. The agent cannot infer valid values or constraints.

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?

Description '删组' is a tautology of the name in Chinese, providing no additional clarity for an English-speaking agent. It fails to convey any specific purpose beyond the tool name.

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?

No usage guidance is given; there is no indication of when to use this tool versus siblings like delete-note or remove-notebook-from-stack.

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

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

No annotations are provided and the description offers no behavioral details. It does not disclose that the deletion requires a 'confirm' parameter, nor does it mention any side effects or prerequisites.

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 extremely short (3 characters) but lacks substance. It is under-specified rather than concisely informative.

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 three required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not provide enough information for an agent to safely invoke the tool.

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% and the description does not explain any of the three required parameters (guid, blockId, confirm). The agent receives no additional meaning beyond the schema itself.

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 '删除块' (delete block) indicates deleting a block, but it is not in English and does not specify that it operates on a super note block. There is no differentiation from sibling tools like 'delete-note' or 'replace-super-note-block'.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'replace-super-note-block' or 'append-super-note-blocks'.

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

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

No annotations are present, and the description omits any behavioral details such as destuctiveness, authentication requirements, or side effects. The burden is fully on the description, which is insufficient.

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 but not effectively so; it fails to provide any valuable information. Underspecification does not count as conciseness. Every sentence should earn its place, and this one doesn't.

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 the tool's complexity (4 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain return values, required permissions, or what exporting entails.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameter meanings. It does not. Parameters like 'guid', 'hash', 'outputPath', 'resourceGuid' are not described, leaving the agent without clue about their usage.

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 '导资源' is a tautology, essentially restating the tool name without clarifying what 'resource' means or what the export does. It fails to specify the verb+resource clearly, and does not distinguish this tool from siblings like 'attach-file' or 'delete-note-resource'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context, exclusions, or any hint of appropriate scenarios.

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

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

Without annotations, the description bears full burden. It only states 'permanently delete note' but omits critical behavioral details: required confirmation parameters, irreversibility, effect on linked resources, or error conditions. The agent receives insufficient transparency for a destructive operation.

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?

At four Chinese characters, the description is extremely concise, but it lacks structure and omits necessary context. While no text is wasted, the brevity undermines informativeness for a complex destructive tool.

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 three required parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, and a destructive action, the description is severely incomplete. It provides no context about parameter usage, behavior, or outcomes, making it inadequate for reliable tool selection.

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 0% and the description adds no explanation of the three parameters (guid, confirm, confirmGuid). Their roles (e.g., confirmGuid likely as a safety check) are completely undocumented, leaving the agent to guess.

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 '永删笔记' clarifies that the tool permanently deletes a note, matching the tool name 'expunge-note' and distinguishing it from the sibling 'delete-note' (likely soft delete). However, it doesn't explicitly state this differentiation or provide English text, which may reduce clarity for non-Chinese agents.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'delete-note' or prerequisites (e.g., confirmation requirements). The description only implies permanent deletion, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only implies a read operation. No details on safety, auth, or rate limits are disclosed.

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 extremely brief, sacrificing informativeness. A single phrase is under-specification, not conciseness.

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 the absence of annotations, output schema, and schema descriptions, the tool description fails to provide a minimally complete understanding of its behavior and parameters.

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 0% and the description omits any parameter explanation. The three parameters (words, maxResults, notebookGuid) are left entirely undefined.

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?

Description '搜笔记' (search notes) is a tautology reinforcing the tool name 'find-notes'. It fails to specify search scope (e.g., title vs. content) or distinguish from siblings like get-note-raw.

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?

No usage context is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool over others, nor does it mention limitations or prerequisites.

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

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

No annotations provided and description does not disclose any behavioral traits (e.g., read-only, destructive, required permissions). Single word provides no insight.

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?

Extremely brief (one word) but at the cost of clarity and utility. Not concise in a helpful way; it is under-specified.

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 the tool's simplicity (one param, no output schema) and many siblings, the description is completely inadequate. No coverage of purpose, parameters, or behavior.

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 0% and description does not explain the required 'guid' parameter. No semantic value added.

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?

Description '读本' is vague and likely incorrect; does not indicate that the tool retrieves a notebook by GUID. No meaningful purpose stated.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs siblings like list-notebooks or update-notebook. No usage context provided.

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

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It merely states '读ENML' without any mention of side effects, error handling, permissions, or what the response contains. The agent cannot infer that this is a read-only operation or how invalid GUIDs are handled.

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?

Extremely concise (two characters) but at the cost of informativeness. Every sentence should earn its place; here, the single phrase does not help an agent understand or invoke the tool correctly. Conciseness without substance is under-specification.

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?

The description is grossly incomplete given the tool's complexity (2 parameters, no output schema). It fails to explain return format, parameter effects, required permissions, or error scenarios. An agent cannot reliably use this tool based on the description alone.

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 must clarify parameter meanings. It fails entirely: the 'includeBodyOnly' parameter defaults to false but is not explained, and 'guid' is assumed understandable from its name. The description adds zero value beyond the raw schema.

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 '读ENML' is Chinese for 'read ENML', which roughly matches the tool name but is opaque to an English-speaking AI. It does not clarify what ENML stands for (likely Evernote Markup Language) or that this tool retrieves the raw content of a note. The purpose is vaguely conveyed but not distinct from siblings like 'replace-note-enml'.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool over alternatives such as 'get-notebook', 'find-notes', or 'replace-note-enml'. The agent receives no context about prerequisites, common use cases, or exclusions.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention any behavior such as pagination, ordering, or scope. The tool's action is completely opaque.

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 extremely short but not concise—it is incomplete and uninformative. It fails to fulfill the basic requirement of describing the tool's function.

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 no output schema and no parameters, the description should provide complete context about what the tool does and returns. It provides none, leaving the agent with no understanding of the tool's purpose.

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?

Although there are no parameters (baseline 4), the description '列本' adds no meaningful semantic information. It does not clarify what the tool outputs or any implicit parameters. The description is essentially useless for parameter understanding.

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 '列本' is ambiguous and likely truncated or garbled. It does not clearly state a verb or resource, failing to indicate that this tool lists notebooks. Compared to sibling tools with clear names like 'create-notebook' and 'get-notebook', this description is meaningless.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool or how it differs from alternatives like 'find-notes' or 'get-notebook'. The description offers no context for selection.

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

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

No annotations are provided, and the description gives no behavioral information. There is no disclosure about side effects, authentication needs, or what the response looks like, making the tool opaque.

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 two characters long, which is severely under-specified. It fails to earn its place; essential information is missing, not concise.

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 the lack of output schema and minimal schema coverage, the description should explain what the tool returns and how the parameter affects results. It provides none of this context.

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?

The input schema has one parameter (includeNotebooks) with 0% description coverage. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, failing to explain the parameter's purpose or effect.

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 '列组' is a tautology or translation that does not clearly state the tool's purpose. It does not specify that the tool lists stacks, and it fails to distinguish from sibling tools like create-stack or delete-stack.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks any context for selection, such as hints about prerequisites or comparisons to similar tools.

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

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

No annotations are provided, and the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as whether moving a note is destructive, requires confirmation, or changes notebooks. The confirm parameter suggests a destructive or irreversible action, but this is not explained.

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 extremely short (one word), but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It does not earn its place as it provides no additional information.

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 the complexity of a move operation with three required parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is completely inadequate for an AI agent to use the tool correctly.

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%, and the description does not explain any of the three required parameters (guid, confirm, notebookGuid). The purpose of the confirm parameter is unclear.

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?

Description is '移笔记', which is a direct translation of the tool name 'move-note'. This is a tautology, providing no additional clarity about what the tool does beyond the name.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like clone-note or delete-note. The description does not mention any context or prerequisites.

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

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

No annotations provided. The description gives no behavioral details such as side effects, permissions, or whether the action is reversible. Agent cannot infer behavior.

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?

Extremely short but under-specified. It is not concise in a helpful way; it omits essential information.

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 the lack of output schema, no annotations, and three required parameters, the description is completely inadequate for an agent to use this tool correctly.

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 has 3 required parameters with no descriptions in the schema (0% coverage). The description adds no information about what each parameter means or how to use them.

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 name suggests moving a notebook to a stack, but the description '本入组' is in Chinese and not informative for an English-based AI agent. It does not clarify the tool's function beyond the name.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'move-note' or 'create-stack'. The description lacks any context for selection.

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

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

No annotations provided. The description does not disclose that a 'confirm' boolean is required, suggesting a destructive operation, but it fails to explain the behavior or implications.

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?

While concise, the description is severely under-specified and does not convey any useful information. It fails to fulfill its basic role.

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 the tool has 2 required parameters and no output schema, the description provides no context about usage, return values, or side effects. Completely incomplete.

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%. The description adds no meaning to the parameters 'notebookGuid' or 'confirm'. The purpose of 'confirm' remains unclear.

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 is a single Chinese phrase '本出组' which is not meaningful in English and does not clearly state the tool's purpose. From the name and context, it likely removes a notebook from a stack, but the description is insufficient.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'move-notebook-to-stack' or 'delete-notebook'. The description lacks any context for selection.

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

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

With no annotations and a minimal description, the tool's behavioral traits are completely undisclosed. It does not mention side effects (e.g., impact on notebooks), required permissions, or whether the operation is reversible. The description adds no value beyond the name.

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 far too concise—a single Chinese word—and lacks essential information. It sacrifices clarity for brevity, resulting in under-specification.

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 the complexity of a rename operation with three required parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or the effect of the 'confirm' parameter.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain any parameters. The 'confirm' parameter's role (e.g., whether it triggers a confirmation step or is a simple boolean flag) is unclear, and there is no information on valid name formats or constraints.

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 is the Chinese word '改组' meaning 'reorganize/restructure', which does not clearly indicate that the tool renames a stack. It fails to state the verb and resource explicitly, and is essentially a tautology or misleading.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create-stack' or 'delete-stack'. There is no context about prerequisites, when renaming is appropriate, or what happens to associated notebooks.

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

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

No annotations are provided, and the description offers no information about behavioral traits such as destructiveness, authorization needs, or side effects. The agent cannot determine if this operation is safe or requires confirmation (though the schema has a 'confirm' parameter).

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 extremely short, but it is not concise in a helpful way. It is under-specified, providing no useful information. Critical details are missing, so it does not earn its place.

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 the lack of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the description is completely inadequate. A tool for replacing note content should explain the format of content, the role of 'confirm', and how this differs from other modification tools. None of this is present.

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%, meaning no parameter descriptions in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameter meanings, such as what 'content' or 'bodyOnly' do. The agent has no help understanding how to set parameters.

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 '替ENML' is cryptic and does not clarify what the tool does. It likely means 'replace ENML' but even that is not explained. It fails to state the verb and resource clearly, and does not differentiate from siblings.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not compare to 'replace-super-note-block' or 'update-super-note'. No context or exclusions provided.

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

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

No annotations are provided, and the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits. There is no mention of whether the operation is destructive, requires confirmation, or any side effects, despite the 'confirm' parameter hinting at a need for caution.

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?

While short, the description is under-informative. It does not earn its place as it provides no useful information for an AI agent to understand the tool's purpose or usage.

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 the complexity of four parameters (including a nested object) and the absence of an output schema, the description is woefully incomplete. It fails to explain what the tool does, how to use it, or what to expect as a result.

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%, and the description adds no meaning to the parameters (guid, block, blockId, confirm). The 'block' parameter of type object is left completely unexplained, and no parameter constraints or formats are mentioned.

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 '替换块' (replace block) essentially restates the tool name without adding specificity. It does not clarify what kind of block is replaced or in what context, making it a tautology.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like delete-super-note-block, append-super-note-blocks, or update-super-note. The description is silent on selection criteria or prerequisites.

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

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

No annotations are provided, and the description gives no behavioral details. It does not indicate whether the operation is destructive, requires confirmation (despite 'confirm' being a required parameter), or what side effects occur (e.g., overwriting existing data).

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 extremely concise (two characters) but at the expense of all useful information. This is under-specification, not effective conciseness. The description fails to provide any value beyond the tool name itself.

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 the complexity (5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, no annotations), the description is completely inadequate. It provides no context for how to use the tool correctly, leaving the agent without essential details to invoke it properly.

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%, and the description adds no meaning to the parameters. With five parameters (guid, name, stack, confirm, clearStack), the agent has no guidance on how they interact or what values are valid. The description does not explain the role of 'confirm' or the effect of 'clearStack'.

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 is '改本', which is Chinese for 'update notebook', basically a tautology with the tool name. It does not specify what aspects of the notebook can be updated (e.g., name, stack), nor does it differentiate from sibling tools like create-notebook or move-notebook-to-stack.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, there is no distinction between updating a notebook's stack via this tool and using move-notebook-to-stack or remove-notebook-from-stack. No prerequisites or context are mentioned.

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

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

The description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the implication of an update operation. There is no mention of permissions, side effects, idempotency, or any other behavioral considerations. Annotations are absent, so the description carries full burden but provides nothing.

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?

While the description is extremely short, it is not concise in a helpful sense—it is under-specified and fails to convey any useful information. Every sentence (or character) should earn its place, but this does not.

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 that there are 4 parameters with no schema descriptions, no output schema, no annotations, and a complex tool (update operation with a 'confirm' parameter suggesting destructive potential), the description is completely inadequate for an AI agent to use the tool correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and no explanation in the description, the meaning of parameters like guid, title, blocks, and confirm is entirely unclear. The description adds no semantic value beyond the schema structure.

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 '改超笔' is a Chinese phrase that appears to be a translation of the tool name, but it does not clearly state what the tool does in English or provide a specific verb and resource. It is essentially a tautology, offering no value beyond the name itself.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings, such as append-super-note-blocks, replace-super-note-block, or create-super-note. The description lacks any context about intended use cases or alternatives.

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