写入结论笔记

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does disclose real side effects: the note is immediately confirmed and extracted, and decision sentences are routed into the decision library. However, it says nothing about permissions, whether writes are reversible, or what the response looks like, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps 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?

The definition is a single compact sentence front-loaded with the core action, with details in a parenthetical. Little waste, though the parenthetical packs several distinct facts (source, origin, confirmation, extraction) that would read better as separate clauses.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and only 25% schema coverage, the description should cover return behavior and the undocumented parameters. It explains extraction side effects but leaves the response format and most parameters unexplained, so an agent cannot fully predict outcomes.

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 only 25%; the title, content, and tags parameters have no descriptive meaning in either the schema or the description. The description's remark that decision sentences go to the decision library is a faint hint about what content should contain, but it does not compensate for the undocumented 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 gives a specific verb+resource (写入结论/备忘 into 项目记忆) and pins down source=note, origin=manual, making the action unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from note-adjacent siblings like annotate_session or get_decisions, but the writing purpose is clear enough for an agent to select it.

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?

Usage is only implied by '把结论/备忘写入项目记忆' – the agent can infer this is for recording conclusions/memos, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not, nor any pointer to an alternative tool. The note that decision sentences 'directly enter the decision library' hints at a relationship with get_decisions but does not frame it as an alternative.

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