add_note

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

The description discloses that TTL decays and auto-archives over time, providing insight into the note's lifecycle. It also gives recommended TTL tiers. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a write/mutation operation, and without annotations, this is a notable gap. It also does not mention potential side effects or return 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?

The description is compact, with two sentences plus an example, and front-loads the core purpose. The example is useful but adds a bit of length; still, every sentence contributes value.

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 (two parameters, no output schema), the description covers the key aspects: purpose, TTL behavior, and an example. It does not explicitly state return values or error conditions, but for a straightforward add operation, these omissions are not critical.

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 schema already describes both parameters (content and ttl) with 100% coverage. The description adds a concrete example and explains the meaning of TTL tiers in context, which enhances understanding beyond the schema fields.

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 uses 'Preserve important knowledge' which clearly indicates the tool's function of adding a note for future reference. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like update_note and remove_note by focusing on preservation. However, it does not explicitly use the verb 'add' or mention 'note', which slightly reduces precision.

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 implies its use for storing lessons, warnings, and decisions for future sessions, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like add_reference or provide exclusion criteria. The context is implied rather than explicitly stated.

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