better-bear

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

Annotations indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent operation (mutation without guarantees of safety or repeatability). The description adds that it modifies markdown, which is useful context beyond annotations. However, it doesn't disclose potential side effects (e.g., tag validation, duplicate handling) 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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and includes essential operational detail. Every word contributes value without redundancy or fluff.

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 mutation tool with good annotations and full schema coverage, the description is adequate but minimal. It lacks output information (no schema provided) and doesn't address error cases or behavioral nuances, leaving some gaps in completeness.

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 100%, with clear parameter descriptions in the schema. The description adds that the tag is inserted into markdown and specifies 'without #', which provides minor semantic context beyond the schema's technical definitions, but most parameter meaning is already covered.

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 action ('Add a tag') and target resource ('an existing Bear note'), with specific detail about how the tag is inserted ('into the note's markdown'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'bear_delete_tag' and 'bear_rename_tag' by focusing on addition, but doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'bear_edit_note' (which might also modify tags) or 'bear_context_add' (which might handle tags in a different way). The description assumes the note exists but doesn't mention prerequisites like needing the note ID or tag format.

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