add_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only says 'Record' without disclosing whether this creates a new entry, appends to a store, or has side effects. It does not mention idempotency, persistence location, or what happens if the same location is reused.

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?

A single, focused sentence that front-loads the verb and includes concrete content types; there is no filler or redundant wording.

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 simple two-parameter tool with an output schema, the core behavior is clear, but the absence of guidance for choosing among overlapping sibling tools leaves a real gap. Since annotations are absent and the description is minimal, the definition is only minimally 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?

The schema already fully documents both parameters ('The note content' and 'file:line or component'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds examples of what kind of content the summary should hold, which is a small improvement over 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 clear action ('Record') and a specific resource (a note) with content categories: gotcha, setup detail, or durable context. It does not explicitly contrast sibling tools, but the categories give enough substance to identify the tool's role.

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 implies use when there is a gotcha, setup detail, or durable context to store, but it does not say when to prefer add_note over log_issue, record_attempt, record_fix, or add_decision. No exclusions or conditions are provided, leaving the agent to infer selection criteria.

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