better-bear

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-destructive, idempotent mutation tool. The description adds valuable context by specifying that the rename affects 'every note containing the old tag,' which clarifies the scope of the operation beyond what annotations provide. It doesn't mention rate limits or authentication needs, but the added behavioral detail is helpful.

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 ('Rename a tag') and immediately specifies the scope. There's no wasted verbiage, and every word contributes directly to understanding the tool's purpose and behavior.

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 mutation affecting multiple notes), annotations cover safety aspects (non-destructive, idempotent), and the description adds useful behavioral context about scope. However, without an output schema, it doesn't describe return values or potential errors, leaving a minor gap 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 both parameters clearly documented in the input schema. The description doesn't add any additional meaning or clarification about the parameters beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation 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 ('Rename a tag') and scope ('across all Bear notes'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like bear_delete_tag or bear_remove_tag which perform different tag operations. It uses precise verbs and specifies the resource being modified.

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 for tag renaming but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like bear_delete_tag or bear_remove_tag. It provides basic context (updating notes with the old tag) but lacks guidance on prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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