add_note

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint=false annotation, the description discloses the important mutation semantics: the note overwrites any existing note, and an empty string clears it (a destructive side effect). It does not cover authorization needs or behavior when the word does not exist.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the overwrite warning before the Args section. The Args block mirrors schema fields but each line adds meaning rather than restating titles.

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 2-parameter write tool with an output schema (so return values need no explanation) and a readOnlyHint annotation, this is largely sufficient. The remaining gap is the not-found / auto-create behavior for an unknown word.

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 the description carries the full burden and does: word is the literal idiom text (成语原文, not an ID) and note is the content, with the non-obvious edge case that an empty string clears the note. Minor gap: no length/format constraints on note.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: write a free-text note on a given idiom, with example content types (易错点, 使用场景). It clearly is not a search/detail/status tool, so it is distinguishable from the sibling set, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 usage context is implied by the example content types (mistake-prone points, usage scenarios), and the sibling list contains no competing note tool, so no alternatives need routing. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or prerequisite.

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