better-bear

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it clarifies that this is a 'soft delete' and notes can be 'recovered from Bear's trash,' which is crucial information not covered by the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true). This disclosure helps the agent understand the reversible nature of the operation, enhancing safety and usability.

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 action in the first sentence, followed by key behavioral details. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 (a destructive but reversible operation), the description is mostly complete: it covers purpose, behavior, and parameters. However, without an output schema, it does not describe return values (e.g., success confirmation or error messages), leaving a minor gap. The annotations and schema provide good support, but the description could be slightly enhanced for full 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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'id' fully documented in the schema. The description mentions that 'the note is identified by its ID,' which aligns with the schema but does not add extra meaning (e.g., format examples or sourcing). Thus, it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating with additional insights.

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 ('Move a Bear note to the trash'), identifies the resource ('Bear note'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'bear_archive_note' and 'bear_delete_tag' by specifying it's a soft delete operation. The verb 'move' is precise and differentiates from permanent deletion.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (to soft delete a note) and implies when not to use it (e.g., for permanent deletion or archiving). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like 'bear_archive_note' or mention prerequisites such as needing the note ID, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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