better-bear

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

Annotations cover destructive and idempotent hints, but the description adds valuable context: it triggers a sync and deletes the local file, which clarifies the operational impact beyond annotations. It does not contradict annotations (destructiveHint=true aligns with 'delete the local file'), and provides specific behavioral details not in the structured data.

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 two concise sentences that front-load the purpose and follow with operational details (sync and file deletion). Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff, making it highly efficient and easy 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?

Given the tool's complexity (destructive operation with one parameter), annotations provide safety hints, and the description adds sync and file deletion context. However, without an output schema, it does not describe return values or error cases, leaving a minor gap. It is mostly complete but could benefit from mentioning outcomes or errors.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter (id), so the description adds no additional parameter details. The baseline is 3 as the schema fully documents the parameter, and the description does not compensate with extra semantics, but it does not detract from the schema's information.

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 ('Remove a Bear note from the context library') and the mechanism ('by removing its #context tag'), distinguishing it from siblings like bear_trash_note (which deletes) and bear_remove_tag (which removes tags generally). It specifies the exact resource (note in context library) and method (#context tag removal).

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 (removing from context library via #context tag) and distinguishes from bear_context_remove_external by focusing on local file deletion, but does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like bear_trash_note or bear_remove_tag. It provides clear intent but lacks explicit comparison to all relevant siblings.

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