cv_note_add

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only says 'log a claim change' but does not explain whether it appends, overwrites, or requires authentication. There is no mention of side effects, idempotency, or file access permissions. This is insufficient for a logging 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?

Two sentences: the first defines the action and types, the second clarifies when to use and explains a parameter. Every sentence earns its place; no fluff. Information is front-loaded with the purpose.

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?

With 5 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description needs to be more thorough. It lacks details on parameter constraints, return behavior (e.g., confirmation message), and edge cases. The tool is simple but the description under-delivers for a complete understanding.

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 only explains 'scope' as free text with an example. The other four parameters ('kind', 'original', 'rewritten', 'justification') are not described at all. The meaning of 'kind' defaults to 'reframe' but no allowed values are listed. This leaves significant gaps.

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 clearly states it logs a CV claim change to cv_notes.md, specifying three types (reframe, stretch, fabrication). It distinguishes from sibling tool cv_reframe_bullet by stating usage 'outside cv_reframe_bullet'. This is specific and unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use ('when you reframe/embellish a bullet or summary outside cv_reframe_bullet') and why ('so the audit trail stays complete'). It also indirectly names the alternative tool (cv_reframe_bullet) and provides context for when not to use this tool.

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