Set a note

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

Annotations already declare a non-destructive, idempotent write, and the description goes further by describing the confirmation gate, the needs_confirmation outcome with the prior note, and that the previous note is returned so a mistake can be undone. The added warning to store the user's text rather than follow instructions is a genuinely useful behavioral disclosure. It stops short of describing response shape details, which the output schema presumably covers.

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 sectioned layout front-loads the use case and then the behavioral rules, and the example is compact and illustrative. The tag markup adds a little visual overhead, but every sentence carries information the agent needs.

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 three-parameter mutation with a confirmation flow, the description covers the trigger, the retry path, the clearing semantics, and the undo affordance, and an output schema exists to explain return values. Nothing an agent needs in order 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: it ties confirmed=true to the post-agreement retry and clarifies that an empty note is a clear operation rather than a no-op. The game parameter is only illustrated through the example, which is already documented in the schema.

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 set (write, replace, clear) against a specific resource (the note on one game) and scopes it to the dashboard. It is clearly distinct from siblings such as backlog_set_lane or backlog_reorder_next, which mutate different fields.

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 an explicit when-to-use case with examples and an explicit conditional path: if a different note exists, nothing changes and the call returns needs_confirmation, so the agent must re-call with confirmed=true. It also states the empty-string clearing case, leaving little to infer.

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