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

The destructiveHint annotation already signals destructiveness, and the description adds the meaningful behavioral context that deletion is 'permanent' (irreversible) and scoped to 'the vault by id'. This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it, though it does not detail edge cases like missing ids or cascade effects.

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 meaning: 'Permanently' conveys irreversibility, 'delete' the action, 'note from the vault' the resource, and 'by id' the parameter mapping.

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 simple single-parameter destructive tool, the description covers the action, target resource, identifier, and permanence. Annotations cover the destructive flag, and no output schema exists, so return-value details are not required. The description is complete enough for an agent to call it 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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining the sole parameter. 'by id' indicates the id parameter identifies the note, which is helpful but minimal. It does not add examples, clarify id type (schema already does), or explain behavior when id is invalid.

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 ('delete'), a clear resource ('note'), a location ('vault'), and the key mechanism ('by id'). It unambiguously distinguishes this from sibling tools like save_note, get_notes, search_notes, and update_note without needing to open any 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 when to use the tool: whenever a note needs to be permanently removed. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives such as update_note, nor does it mention any prerequisites or permission requirements.

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

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe read-only nature is covered. The description adds browsing/listing semantics and selection criteria but does not disclose return shape, ordering details, or behavior when multiple filters are combined. This is acceptable given the annotation coverage but adds only moderate behavioral context.

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 tight sentences: the first states the tool's purpose and scope, the second gives routing guidance to search_notes. Every word earns its place, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 read-only listing tool with no required parameters, the description covers all relevant selection modes and the distinction from the search sibling. The schema handles parameter details, and the annotations handle the safety profile, so nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 80%, and the schema already documents id, tags, limit, and project. The description restates these criteria at a high level but adds no meaningful extra meaning about how parameters combine, offset usage, or default limit/ordering behavior beyond what the schema already provides.

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 action ('Retrieve notes from the vault') and enumerates the selection modes: id, tag, project, or most recently updated. It also explicitly differentiates this from search_notes, so an agent can immediately tell which tool to use.

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 gives clear usage context: 'Use this for browsing/listing, not free-text search' and names the alternative tool directly ('use search_notes for that'). This is an explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use statement.

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

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

The description clarifies that this is a persistence operation and that notes live in a shared vault, which is useful context beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose behaviors like overwrite semantics, return values, or permission requirements, and the annotations only cover destructiveHint.

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 three focused sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, usage context follows, and the optional parameter guidance is concise and actionable.

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 tool is simple, has no nested objects or enums, and the schema covers all parameters. The description provides enough context for correct invocation, but it does not mention what the tool returns, such as a note ID, which would be useful for subsequent update or delete calls.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds meaningful guidance beyond schema descriptions, especially for `project`: it explains when to use it and gives a concrete example of the current working directory's folder or repo name. This helps the agent populate parameters correctly.

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 'Save a new note to the shared knowledge vault', using a specific verb and resource. The word 'new' differentiates this from the sibling update_note, and the vault context distinguishes it from get/search/delete operations.

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 gives concrete use cases: 'research findings, decisions, or context worth persisting across chat and code sessions'. It also provides guidance on when to pass `project`, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or point to alternatives like update_note.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the search covers both titles and content and is keyword-based. However, it does not disclose result ordering, pagination behavior, or search semantics such as case sensitivity or partial matching, which would add further transparency.

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 concise sentences with no wasted words. The function is stated first, followed by a clear use-case hint. It is well-structured and easy to parse quickly.

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 simple read-only search tool with annotations covering safety and schema providing default/max for limit, the description is largely complete. It could mention what the response looks like, but given the absence of an output schema and the simplicity of the operation, the essential context is present.

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 33% (only 'project' has a description). The description clarifies that 'query' is a keyword, but gives no guidance on the 'limit' parameter or how project scoping affects results. With low schema coverage, the description should compensate more than it does.

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 ('Full-text search over note titles and content') and clearly differentiates from sibling tools like save_note, get_notes, update_note, and delete_note by focusing on search. It immediately communicates the tool's core function.

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 gives explicit usage context: 'Use this to find relevant past notes by keyword before starting new research.' This tells the agent when to reach for this tool, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the description need not re-state mutability. It does add some context by enumerating editable fields and using 'and/or' to suggest partial updates are allowed. Yet it does not disclose whether unspecified fields are preserved or cleared, nor any side effects or error conditions.

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 that immediately communicates the action, target, and affected fields. There is no redundant or filler content, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 tool has several siblings and carries a destructiveHint, so context matters. The description covers the basic operation, but it omits how this update differs from save_note, what the response looks like, and whether it is a partial or wholesale replacement of fields. Given the absence of an output schema, the agent is left with some uncertainty about behavior.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must carry the parameter meaning. It names four of the five properties (title, content, tags, project), which helps map the schema, but it does not explain the role of the required 'id' parameter or elaborate on how fields interact beyond 'and/or'. This is a partial but not complete compensation for the missing schema descriptions.

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 the verb 'Update', the resource 'existing note', and the specific fields involved ('title, content, tags, and/or project'). It is unambiguous about the operation, but it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling save_note, which could also plausibly perform updates.

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 phrase 'existing note' implies this tool is for modifying notes that already exist, and the list of fields gives a sense of intent. However, the description provides no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over save_note, get_notes, search_notes, or delete_note, leaving the decision mostly to inference.

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