Add routing note

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers only "append", which establishes write semantics but nothing else. It does not say whether the note persists, who or what reads it back (agents? the router?), whether notes are ordered or mutable, whether repeat calls duplicate, or whether any permission is needed. For a mutation into shared "routing memory", these omissions matter.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler — verb and resource come first. It is arguably too terse for a tool with zero annotation and zero schema coverage, but nothing in it is wasted.

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 tool is simple (2 flat params, one enum, no nesting) and there is no output schema to explain, so the bar is modest. Still, with no annotations at all the description should have covered what a call returns or confirms and whether the note is readable later — a real gap for an append-to-shared-memory operation.

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 compensate, and it partly does: "free-form delegation note" maps to the required `text` param and "project or user" maps directly to the `scope` enum's two values. However it adds no format, length, or content conventions for `text`, and does not state that `scope` is optional or what the default is.

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?

Specific verb ("Append") plus resource ("delegation note") plus destination ("project or user routing memory") — an agent knows the operation and target without opening the schema. It does not differentiate from any sibling, but none of the listed siblings (spawn_agent, send_message, record_outcome, etc.) overlap as note-writing tools, so ambiguity risk is low. "Routing memory" is jargon that is never defined, which keeps it below 5.

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 never says when to use this tool, when not to, or what the alternative is. There is no guidance on choosing between a project-scoped vs user-scoped note — the only plausible decision point in the tool — and no mention of prerequisites or a prior step (e.g. spawn/delegate) that makes a note appropriate.

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