add_working_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses two behavioral traits: plan notes auto-resolve previous plans and priority defaults for plan/information types, which are non-obvious. However, it does not specify whether the note is appended or if there are other side effects, so it's not fully transparent.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main action. No wasted words; each sentence adds meaningful information.

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 tool, the description covers the core purpose and two important behavioral details. It lacks mention of return value or explicit statement that a new note is created (though implied), but schema covers parameters, so context is largely adequate.

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 coverage is 100%, with descriptions for all four parameters. The description adds some behavioral context (auto-resolve) but mostly repeats schema info like priority defaults, so it provides minimal additional parameter semantics.

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 action ('Add a working note') and the resource ('to a task'), and enumerates valid note types, distinguishing it from retrieval (get_task_notes) and resolution (resolve_working_note) siblings.

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 when to use (adding a note to a task) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like resolve_working_note or escalate_working_note. It lacks explicit when-not or alternative guidance, making it adequate but not distinguished.

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