write_note

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

Beyond the annotations (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses substantive behavior: full-content replacement rather than merge, old versions not copied, and receipts deduplicating write IDs without retaining prior strategy content. This explains what happens to prior data, which the annotations alone do not. It stops short of stating auth requirements or failure/rejection 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?

Roughly fourteen packed sentences that mix the core write semantics with migration notes, TEST run-ID conventions, Chinese-guide scope, and receipt behavior. The purpose is in the first sentence but immediately diffuses; several clauses ('TEST remains separate', 'Formal run IDs start n5-') do not help an agent invoke this tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description does note the default strategy response omits audit fields. For a 6-parameter, nested-object, revision-controlled write, though, key parameter meanings (note_id, kind, view) and the exact create path (expected_revision=0) are left unclear.

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 carry all parameter meaning. It partially does: content's sub-fields (sources, facts, interpretation, conditions, counterexamples, confidence, revision_reason), expected_revision ('updates require current expected_revision'), and write_id (receipt dedup) are addressed. But note_id, kind, and view are never explained, leaving the compensation incomplete.

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 conveys a specific verb and scope (atomic replace of a note's local current content under revision control) rather than a tautology. However, it never clearly names the resource as a 'note' matching write_note, and it buries the core purpose under tangents about Chinese guides, migrations, and run-ID conventions. An agent must read several sentences to extract the essential action.

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 conditional guidance: '0 creates; updates require current expected_revision', 'Before amending, explicitly read content/full', and 'Legacy local data requires the maintenance migration'. These imply when the tool applies, but no sibling alternative is named (e.g., read_notes) and the create-vs-update branch is stated obliquely rather than as an explicit rule.

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