Attach a fact to a node

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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world write. The description adds real behavior beyond that: 'without changing focus' and 'Excess notes without children are flagged', the latter warning of a lint-style consequence. It does not explain accumulation/dedup behavior, which matters given idempotentHint=false.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by routing and warning information; nothing is padded. The aphoristic phrasing ('typed nodes, never notes') is dense but occasionally oblique.

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 two-parameter write with no output schema and full schema coverage, most of the burden is met, but two things an agent needs are missing: the effect of omitting `id`, and what the tool returns or how repeated notes accumulate. The 'flagged' warning is mentioned without saying by what or when.

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%, so both parameters are documented structurally, and the description adds only the loose framing of a fact attached to a node. Notably it does not clarify what happens when the optional `id` is omitted (presumably attaching to the current focus node, which 'without changing focus' only vaguely gestures at). Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the semantics.

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 says to 'attach progress or changes outside Git' and that 'CI/tracker/cloud facts belong here', which conveys the kind of fact being recorded, but it never plainly states that a note is attached to a specific node (only the title does). The contrast sentence about 'typed nodes' hints at the resource, yet an agent must infer the core verb+target from the title rather than the description.

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 gives a genuine when-not rule: 'Findings, choices and pending work need typed nodes, never notes', which routes the agent away from this tool toward sibling node-creating tools. It also gives a positive case ('CI/tracker/cloud facts'). It stops short of naming the alternative tools explicitly, so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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