set_starred

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the core effect (toggling starred state) and a constraint (only existing active notes), but it does not mention failure behavior for invalid/inactive IDs, idempotency, permissions, or side effects beyond the star flag.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the operation and scope.

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 output schema covers return values, and the tool is simple, but with no annotations the description still omits failure behavior for invalid/inactive IDs and any side effects. It is adequate as a minimum-viable definition, but not richly instructive.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by specifying 'one or more' for note_ids, 'existing active' as a validity constraint, and 'mark or unmark' to clarify the starred boolean's effect. It does not explicitly name each parameter, but the mapping is clear.

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 uses a specific verb ('Mark or unmark') and a specific resource ('existing active notes as starred'), making the operation unambiguous. The starred action is unique among the listed siblings, so an agent can distinguish it without opening the schema.

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 description implies usage by restricting the target to 'existing active notes,' but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings or provide exclusions. No alternative tools or when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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