format_rich_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions a guard mechanism via 'current visible text', implying a precondition, but it does not explain what happens on mismatch, whether the operation is destructive, or any side effects. This is insufficient 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 description is a single, tightly-worded sentence with no redundancy. Key elements are front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 the tool has three required parameters, zero schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description is far too brief. It omits essential details about the document_json format, the exact guard behavior, and any prerequisites or side effects, making it difficult for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 descriptions are completely absent (0% coverage), so the description must explain all parameters. It clarifies expected_text's role as a guard but leaves document_json (presumably the formatting payload) and note_id (self-evident but not described) underspecified. The format and semantics of document_json are entirely unexplained.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'apply explicit rich formatting to an existing note'. It also adds a distinguishing feature ('guarded by its current visible text'), but it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool format_note, which likely serves a related 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus format_note or other alternatives. No context, exclusions, or conditions are provided, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage.

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