better-bear

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent operation. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by specifying that files are uploaded to iCloud and embedded in markdown, and describes default behavior (appended to end) with placement options. However, it does not cover potential errors, rate limits, or authentication needs, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by supporting details in a logical flow. Each sentence adds necessary information without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for quick understanding.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, mutation operation) and lack of output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers the core functionality, file support, and placement behavior. However, it does not describe the return value or error cases, which could be helpful for an agent invoking this tool.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning placement options ('after', 'before', 'prepend') in a contextual way, but does not provide additional syntax or format details. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Attach a file or image') and target resource ('to an existing Bear note'), distinguishing it from siblings like bear_create_note or bear_edit_note. It specifies the upload destination (iCloud) and embedding format (markdown), providing precise purpose.

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 usage context by mentioning it works with 'existing Bear note' and supports common file types, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like bear_edit_note for text modifications. It provides some guidance on placement options but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools.

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