annotate

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

Annotations are basic (readOnlyHint false, etc.). The description adds behavioral details such as task_ref normalization to lowercase kebab-case and semantic labels for kind. No contradictions. Some traits like mutation are implied but not explicitly stated.

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 sentences with a list of use cases. Each sentence adds value, no fluff, and the main action is front-loaded.

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, 0% schema coverage, and an output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, usage, and two key parameters. However, actor and originator are missing. Overall still informative enough for typical use.

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%, so description must compensate. It explains kind (lists semantic types) and task_ref (grouping + normalization). But actor and originator are not explained, leaving gaps. id and content are self-explanatory from context.

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 a specific verb ('Append a note') and resource ('existing idea'), and distinguishes when to use this tool vs. creating a separate idea. It clearly states the purpose.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: when current work updates an existing idea, to attach new evidence/correction, and when not to create a separate idea. Also implies alternatives (e.g., capture for new ideas).

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