put_note

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose the critical side effect 'Overwrites' and clarifies the ownership scope. Yet it omits other behavioral details such as whether the operation is idempotent, whether it appends or truncates, or any return value. The overwrite disclosure is key, but the overall transparency is incomplete for a mutating tool.

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 two short sentences with no redundancy. It packs the core action, the ownership, the destructive nature, and the exclusion into minimal words, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 mutating tool without annotations, the description lacks context needed for correct invocation: there is no guidance on when to use it versus create_memory or get_note, no mention of any prerequisites or side effects beyond overwriting, and no information about what the tool returns after a successful write. Given its destructive nature and 2 parameter set, more context would be expected.

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 describes only the 'cwd' parameter ('Working directory this note belongs to'); 'content' has no description. The tool description does not elaborate on what 'content' should contain or its format. With 50% schema coverage and no explanation in the description, an agent receives insufficient guidance for one of the two parameters.

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 states the verb 'write' and the resource ('magents-owned shared note for a working directory'), and explicitly distinguishes it from first-party agent memory. It doesn't directly name siblings like get_note or create_memory, but the resource and scope are specific enough to differentiate from generic memory tools.

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 when to use this tool (writing the shared note for a cwd) and provides a negative exclusion ('Not first-party agent memory'), which hints against using it for personal memory. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives like create_memory or get_note, leaving some inference required.

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