finish_handed_note

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

Beyond the annotations (which only say non-read-only, non-destructive), it discloses that the note content itself is unchanged, that the line is visible to the person in the app, that an 'Allow edits' permission is required, and the two concrete failure modes (unknown id, locked folder). Consistent with annotations – marking a task done is a mutation but not a destructive one.

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?

Reasonably compact and front-loaded with the action and its effect, followed by preconditions and failure modes. The long parenthetical in the second sentence and the line break before 'Needs Allow edits' make it slightly denser than ideal, but no sentence is wasted.

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 mutation with a human-visible side effect, the description covers precondition ordering, id provenance, permission requirement, and failure behavior; the return shape is covered by the output schema. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: where the id comes from (handed_notes) and that what_you_did is displayed to the person next to the task. It does not repeat the schema's format guidance, which is fine since the schema covers it.

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?

States a specific verb (tick off / mark complete) on a specific resource (one task in the AI handed-notes list) plus the side effect (a short line shown to the person). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like handed_notes, replace_in_note, and append_to_note, which it names.

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?

Explicitly says to call it only after changes are saved with replace_in_note or append_to_note, only once per task, and to obtain the id from handed_notes. That is an ordered workflow with named alternatives, leaving little to inference.

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