better-bear

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds valuable context by specifying it removes a tag 'from a specific Bear note,' clarifying the scope of the destructive action. It doesn't contradict annotations (readOnlyHint=false aligns with 'Remove'), and while it doesn't detail side effects like error handling, it provides meaningful behavioral insight beyond the structured hints.

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, direct sentence that efficiently conveys the core action without any fluff or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the essential information, making it easy to parse and understand immediately, with no wasted words.

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 (a destructive mutation with two parameters), annotations cover safety and idempotency well, and schema coverage is complete. However, the lack of an output schema means the description doesn't explain return values or success/error responses, and it misses usage guidelines, leaving some gaps in overall context.

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 descriptions for both parameters (id as 'Note ID' and tag as 'Tag to remove'). The description adds no additional semantic details beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline for high coverage without extra value.

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 ('Remove a tag') and target resource ('from a specific Bear note'), using precise language. It directly distinguishes from sibling tools like bear_add_tag (adds tags) and bear_delete_tag (deletes the tag itself from the system), making the purpose unambiguous and well-differentiated.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like bear_delete_tag (which deletes the tag entirely) or bear_edit_note (which might modify tags differently). It also doesn't mention prerequisites, such as requiring the note to exist or the tag to be present on it, leaving usage context unclear.

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