add_note

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says "pin" but never discloses whether the note persists across sessions, whether the call fails on an out-of-range time, what identifier is returned for later resolve_note calls, or that author defaults to "agent" — all material for a mutation tool.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and the target, with zero filler. It is efficient rather than padded, though the brevity leaves the gaps noted elsewhere unaddressed.

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 four-parameter write tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no schema descriptions, this single sentence leaves too much unspecified. The agent cannot determine time units, the meaning of project/author, or what to do after adding a note (resolve_note exists as a sibling).

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% across four parameters, so the description must compensate and largely doesn't. It clarifies that "time" means a position on the timeline but not the unit (seconds vs. frames), and it says nothing about what "project" expects or that "author" defaults to the agent.

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 gives a specific verb-plus-resource ("Pin a review note") and a target ("a timeline time"), so the agent knows exactly what object is created and where it attaches. It implicitly separates itself from siblings like list_notes and resolve_note, though it never names them.

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 parenthetical "e.g. a question for the human" gives one concrete motivating scenario, which implies when to reach for this tool. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of the resolve_note follow-up workflow, and no stated prerequisites such as an existing project or valid timeline range.

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