add_note

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-destructive local write. The description adds that the note is returned with its id, which is useful confirmation of the mutation's result. It does not state whether placement collides with existing notes or what happens on duplicate coordinates.

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 short sentences with no filler; the action and scope come first, the return behavior second. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With full schema coverage, an output schema for the return value, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies what the agent needs to call the tool. Only minor gaps remain, such as how notes interact with existing canvas content.

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 x, y, and text are already documented in the schema, including a concrete example for text. The description adds no parameter syntax or constraints beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 text note on the logical canvas') and clarifies the target surface is the canvas rather than e.g. a device config. It doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like remove_note or list_notes, but the action is unambiguous.

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?

'for example to label a subnet or a VLAN' implies the intended use case (annotating/labeling the topology). There is no explicit when-not guidance or naming of alternatives such as list_notes for reading notes back.

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