Suggest Metadata

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

The description states 'It is read-only and never edits YAML,' but the annotations declare readOnlyHint: false, indicating the operation may not be read-only. This is a direct annotation contradiction. Per the rubric, behavioral_transparency must be scored 1 when the description contradicts annotations.

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 description is structured with purpose first, then output details, then usage, then behavioral notes, then context semantics. Every sentence adds meaningful information and there is no filler. Despite being moderately long, the detail is mostly essential for correctly invoking the tool.

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 tool with no output schema, the description generously enumerates return fields, explains the read-only nature, notes embedding-dependent fields, and describes the optional context object's purpose. This gives an agent enough to decide and call the tool correctly, aside from the read-only contradiction flagged above.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds useful context about the context object ('test metadata overrides without changing the note') and mentions semantic fields requiring embeddings, but it does not substantially improve parameter-level understanding beyond 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+resource: 'Analyze one note and propose knowledge-graph metadata for review.' It also enumerates the exact outputs (domain sign, material type, hierarchy level, tags, etc.), which goes well beyond a vague purpose statement. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like write_file and update_metadata.

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 explicitly says when to use it: 'Use this before write_file when you want classification help, or to audit an existing note.' It also clarifies the tool is read-only and never edits YAML, which implicitly routes agents away from using it for mutations. This is strong usage guidance.

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