prepend_to_note

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only restates the action. It does not specify whether the note must already exist, whether the operation modifies the note in place, what happens if the note is missing, or any side effects. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 concise sentence with no filler. The key information (adding text to the beginning) is front-loaded and immediately actionable. It earns its place with zero waste.

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?

Despite having an output schema and only 2 simple parameters, the description lacks essential behavioral context for a mutating operation. It does not state whether the note must already exist, whether it creates a note if missing, or how errors are handled. Given no annotations, the description is not complete enough for reliable invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does relate 'texte' to the text parameter and 'une note' to the path parameter, but it adds no detail about the path format or how the note is identified. The parameter names are intuitive, but the description only minimally clarifies their meaning.

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 'Ajoute du texte au debut d'une note' clearly specifies the action (add text), the resource (note), and the location (beginning), which distinguishes it from the sibling tool append_to_note that adds text at the end. The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.

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 implied usage is to prepend text to a note, but the description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like append_to_note, write_note, or create_note. It does not mention conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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