add_note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that notes are pin-able to a file or symbol, but says nothing about persistence scope (private vs shared), whether notes are durable or session-limited, or what the returned result contains.

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?

A single, tight sentence with the core action and the optionality of pinning front-loaded. No filler; every clause carries 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?

The presence of an output schema means return values needn't be explained, and the description covers the core intent plus the optional pinning. However, for a mutation tool with no annotations and undocumented params, it leaves meaningful gaps about persistence behavior and targeted use.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. 'Optionally pinned to a file or symbol' gives meaning to the path and symbol parameters, and 'remember a decision, invariant or gotcha' implies the text parameter's content, but no format details or defaults are clarified.

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 action (remember/storing) on a specific resource (a note) and names the kind of content it captures (decisions, invariants, gotchas). It implicitly contrasts with the retrieval-focused siblings like search and get_context, though it doesn't name them explicitly.

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 gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, nor does it point to alternatives. An agent must infer from 'remember a decision' that this is the tool for persisting durable context, with no exclusions or routing conditions stated.

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