better-bear

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

Annotations indicate this is a mutable, non-destructive, non-idempotent operation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false). The description adds valuable context beyond this: it explains how different parameters interact (e.g., front matter edits not combinable with body/append), which clarifies behavioral constraints not covered by annotations.

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 and efficient: it starts with the core purpose, then lists parameter uses in a structured way, and ends with a critical constraint. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy for an agent 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?

Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, nested objects) and lack of output schema, the description is mostly complete: it covers key operations and constraints. However, it doesn't detail error cases or response formats, which could be helpful for an agent. Annotations provide safety context, but some behavioral nuances (e.g., what happens on invalid inputs) are omitted.

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 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics: it explains the purpose of key parameters (append_text, body, set_frontmatter, remove_frontmatter) and their relationships (e.g., front matter edits can be combined with each other but not with body/append). This provides context beyond the schema's technical 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 ('Edit') and resource ('an existing Bear note'), specifying it's for modifying existing notes. It distinguishes from siblings like bear_create_note (creation) and bear_trash_note (deletion) by focusing on editing 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 provides explicit usage guidelines: it specifies when to use different parameters (e.g., 'append_text' to add text, 'body' to replace content) and includes exclusion rules ('Front matter edits can be combined with each other but not with body/append'). This helps the agent choose between this tool and alternatives like bear_create_note for new notes.

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