add_work_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: append-only ('Notes are append-only and never overwrite each other'), automatic timestamping, and the author_kind distinction. This goes beyond simple mutation and informs the agent about side effects, though it omits error/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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, then usage guidance, then a key parameter rule. Every sentence adds value and nothing is redundant.

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 description covers purpose, usage, append-only behavior, and author_kind semantics, which is strong for a simple tool with full schema coverage. It lacks explicit return-value or error details, and is_internal is only in the schema, so it is not fully complete but very close.

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 100% with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds meaningful nuance for author_kind ('ONLY when you are relaying a note dictated by the human user') and provides an example note for context. Other parameters are sufficiently documented by the schema, so a baseline-3-plus is appropriate.

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 leads with a specific verb and resource: 'Append a timestamped work note (status update) to a task's activity log.' This clearly differentiates it from siblings like add_comment or log_time by emphasizing it as a progress/status record for future sessions.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool ('Use this to record progress so a future session can pick up where you left off') and includes a conditional rule for author_kind. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a full 5.

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