Save a note

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

The description goes beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) by disclosing storage details: 'local plain files' and 'user-readable and deletable'. This adds meaningful context about the tool's side effects and accessibility, which annotations do not provide.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and then efficiently packs scope formats and storage behavior. Every word earns its place.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is fully sufficient. It covers purpose, parameter semantics, and behavioral details, leaving no critical gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 schema coverage at 0%, the description compensates well for the 'scope' parameter by enumerating valid formats ('machine:<printer>/<filament>', 'user', 'project:<name>'). The 'note' parameter is self-explanatory from its name. This adds necessary semantic meaning beyond the bare schema.

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's function with a specific verb ('Persist a context fact') and resource ('for future sessions'). It distinguishes itself from all sibling tools, which focus on slicing/printing operations. The scope examples further clarify its unique role.

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 through the scope examples (machine, user, project), indicating when this tool is relevant. However, it does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use it, though no sibling offers similar functionality. This is clear context without explicit exclusions.

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