Add a research note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose meaningful traits: the content must be Markdown, the note links to sources, and notes feed generate_outline. It omits whether sources must pre-exist, whether the note is mutable afterward, duplicate handling, and what the call returns.

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 tight sentences with zero padding. The core action is front-loaded, and the second sentence supplies useful workflow context rather than restating the name or title.

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 creation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should say more about results and constraints. It covers purpose, format and downstream use, but leaves the return value (e.g. a note id) and failure conditions unspecified, so it is adequate rather than complete.

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 75%, close to the 80% threshold where the schema does the heavy lifting, so 3 is the appropriate baseline. The description adds only marginal meaning: 'Markdown' maps to content and 'link it to the sources' maps to sources, but title and tags semantics remain unaddressed.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Write a research note') plus format ('in Markdown') and a linking behavior. It differentiates itself somewhat from siblings by naming the downstream consumer (generate_outline), but it never contrasts with update_note or add_quote, so an agent must infer those boundaries.

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?

It gives implied usage context by explaining that notes are the raw material for generate_outline, which hints at when this tool fits in a workflow. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus update_note/add_quote, no prerequisites (e.g. must sources already exist), and no exclusions.

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