user_notes_v1_put

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses the OAuth requirement and that notes are added/edited, but it does not explain whether existing notes are overwritten, how the body is validated, what happens on partial failure, or the response format. This is insufficient 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 compact and front-loaded with the endpoint and purpose. It packs required body, auth, and a guide reference into a single line without excessive verbosity, though the reference to an external guide is slightly redundant and could be considered filler.

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 PUT operation with an unstructured required body, no output schema, and no annotations. The description fails to explain what the body should contain or what the response will look like, leaving the agent unable to construct a correct request without additional external lookup. The external guide reference mitigates this only partially.

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% for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only that body is required and repeats the OAuth token/env variable fallback, but it does not clarify the shape or content of the required body object, which is left without a type in 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 explicitly states the endpoint path and action: "Add or edit notes" via [PUT] /user/notes/v1. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like user_notes_v1_get and user_notes_v1_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 implies usage for creating or updating notes, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the GET or DELETE sibling tools, nor does it mention any exclusions. The OAuth requirement is a prerequisite, 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.