session_add_note

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

The description discloses that notes are attached to the session log and not counted as operation steps, and that the recorded note entry is returned. However, with no annotations provided, it does not elaborate on persistence, reversibility, or any side effects beyond the immediate action.

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 concise and well-structured with Args and Returns sections. It contains no redundant information and each line serves a purpose.

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?

For a simple logging tool, the description covers purpose, parameters, and return value. It does not explain how notes interact with session steps or whether they are editable, but given the tool's simplicity, the information is largely sufficient.

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 description provides the allowed values for note_type ('observation', 'assumption', 'limitation', 'correction') which are absent from the input schema. It also clarifies the note parameter as the content, adding meaning beyond the bare schema titles.

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 tool attaches a human/LLM insight to the session log, explicitly distinguishing it from an operation step. This specifies the verb (attach) and resource (session log) with enough clarity to differentiate from sibling session tools.

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?

It explains the note types (observation, assumption, limitation, correction) which indicate appropriate use cases, and explicitly states 'not an operation step' to exclude that context. However, it does not name alternative tools or provide explicit when/when-not beyond this single exclusion.

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