Create, update, or manage remio notes

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

The description adds the behavioral detail 'Requires explicit confirmation for every call,' which is not present in the annotations. While the annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, the confirmation requirement is a meaningful addition. It does not describe what gets destroyed or other side effects, but for a mutation tool with annotations, this is a useful extra behavior.

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 a single concise sentence that communicates its core function and a key requirement. It is front-loaded with the primary action and adds the confirmation note without unnecessary verbosity.

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?

This is a highly complex tool with 19 parameters, 7 enum actions, and no output schema or parameter descriptions, yet the description is only one sentence. It does not explain the range of actions, which parameters apply to which operation, or how confirmation works. The schema alone is insufficient for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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?

The schema has 19 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description adds no parameter-specific meaning. It only lists broad resource categories (notes, people notes, images, permissions, status) without mapping to any of the input parameters, actions, or options. With such low coverage, the description should compensate but fails to do so.

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 clearly identifies the tool as a mutation tool for notes and related resources ('Changes notes, people notes, note images, permissions, or status'). It distinguishes from read-only siblings like remio_search_notes and remio_read by signaling write functionality, though the verb 'Changes' is broad and doesn't enumerate specific operations like create or delete.

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 provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It does not differentiate this tool from siblings like remio_share or remio_collections, nor does it state when not to use it. The only contextual hint is 'Requires explicit confirmation,' which is a usage requirement but not a usage guideline.

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