monica_notes

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds invocation-critical behavior beyond that: delete requires confirm: true (omitting it would fail the call), and 'favorite pins it' describes a side effect of create/update. It still says nothing about auth or reversibility, keeping it below a 5.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence establishes the resource, then a tight bulleted list handles each action with no filler. Every clause carries information, though the compressed per-action glosses leave some field-mapping detail unstated rather than over-explained.

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 7-parameter, 5-action tool with no output schema and low schema coverage, the description covers the action set well but does not fully specify which fields each action needs or what a call returns. It is adequate for choosing an action but leaves gaps an agent would have to resolve by trial.

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 only 29%, so the description must carry the parameter burden, and it partially does: confirm:true maps to delete, 'favorite pins it' maps to favorite, and 'a contact's notes' implies contact is the filter for list. However it never explicitly maps body/contact/id to the specific actions that require them, so the agent must infer field requirements per action despite the action field's own pointer back to this description.

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 names a specific resource ('Notes about contacts: things to remember about someone') and enumerates every operation the tool supports (list/get/create/update/delete) with a short gloss of each. An agent can tell what each action does, though it does not explicitly distinguish notes from the semantically adjacent monica_journal sibling.

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?

Each action is scoped: list returns either a contact's notes or the most recent across everyone, get returns one note in full, create/update write a note, delete removes one. This tells the agent when to pick each branch. It stops short of stating exclusions or alternatives (e.g., when to prefer monica_journal over a note), so it is clear context rather than full routing guidance.

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