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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses title extraction and folder defaults but omits behavioral details like side effects, irreversibility, authentication needs, or what happens on failure. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core action, the second explains important details (title extraction, folder). Efficient and well-structured.

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 creation tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and key defaults. It lacks mention of return value or confirmation, but given the simplicity, it is largely sufficient.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds value: it explains that the first line of markdown becomes the title, which is not in the schema. The folder parameter default is also reiterated, but schema already includes that. Overall, description enhances parameter understanding.

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 'create', the resource 'note', and the source 'Markdown content'. It explains that the first line becomes the title and mentions optional folder with default. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_note, get_note, etc.

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 does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., update_note). It implies usage for creating new notes but lacks explicit exclusions or conditions, leaving it to the agent to infer from sibling names.

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

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

With no annotations, the description provides key behavioral context: the note is moved to Recently Deleted (not permanently erased), which is important for decision-making. However, it does not detail side effects, permission requirements, or recovery timeframe.

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?

Extremely concise at two sentences, with the most critical information first. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 delete operation without output schema, the description adequately covers the action and its immediate consequence. It could mention that the note enters a recoverable state, but the core behavior is clear.

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 describes both parameters (title required, folder optional). The description adds meaning by clarifying that title is the primary identifier and folder is for disambiguation, which is not redundant with 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 clearly states the verb (delete), resource (note), and method (by title). It also distinguishes from siblings like update_note by specifying the action and the consequence ('moved to Recently Deleted').

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?

It implies when to use the folder parameter for disambiguation but lacks explicit guidance on when to choose delete_note over other tools like search_notes or update_note. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the output format (Markdown) but does not disclose error behavior (e.g., note not found), authentication requirements, or rate limits. Basic behavioral info is present, but significant gaps remain for a read operation.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and output format, then adds the optional parameter. Perfectly concise for a simple tool.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (two params, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers the essentials: what it does, required input, output format, and optional disambiguation. Missing error handling details, but overall adequate for a straightforward retrieval tool.

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 the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds minimal value: 'by its title' and 'Optionally specify folder to disambiguate' reinforce but don't extend the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get the full content of a note by its title, returned as Markdown.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and implicitly distinguishes from siblings (create, delete, list, search, update) by focusing on retrieval. Could be improved by noting it returns a single note, not a list.

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 mentions 'Optionally specify folder to disambiguate,' providing a clear use case for the folder parameter. However, it offers no guidance on when not to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it suggest using search_notes when the title is unknown. The sibling context helps but is not integrated.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose real behavior: notes come newest-first, the default return size is 50, and each row is a fixed pipe-delimited line. It stops short of covering pagination beyond the default or confirming read-only semantics, but ordering, cardinality, and output format are the traits an agent actually needs here.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and output format, then the alternative. No filler and every clause is load-bearing.

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 two-parameter list tool with no output schema, describing the line format, ordering, and default count covers the essential gaps the schema leaves open. The only omissions are pagination/truncation behavior beyond the default 50 and an explicit statement that this is a read-only operation.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters (limit, folder) are already fully documented in the schema. The description repeats the default of 50 and implies folder scoping but adds no syntax, matching rules, or edge cases beyond that. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List notes') plus the exact output shape: 'title | folder | modified date | pinned'. It explicitly names search_notes as the tool for a different use case, so an agent can separate it from its siblings without opening any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit routing rule: use this tool to enumerate notes, and use search_notes instead when the goal is finding notes by content. That is a clear when/when-not split against a named sibling.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the AND-matching rule, case-insensitivity, result ordering (title matches first), default result count, and the exact result shape. It stops short of covering pagination or the absence of folder/tag scoping, which matters for a search 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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does and the matching rule, then the practical payoff, then ordering/default. Every clause is actionable and none is redundant.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by describing the return rendering ('title | folder | modified date' plus an excerpt) and result count, which is exactly what an agent needs to decide whether to call get_note afterward. Scope limitations (whether search spans all folders) are the only unaddressed item, a minor gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description genuinely enriches the 'query' parameter by spelling out that all space-separated words must match and that matching is case-insensitive — semantics the schema's 'Words to search for' does not convey. 'limit' gets no extra treatment beyond the default already 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Full-text search across note titles and bodies') and immediately defines the matching model. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_note by explaining that the excerpt means 'you often don't need get_note.' An agent can route without opening a schema.

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?

Gives a clear use condition: search this instead of calling get_note when you only need a snippet. It does not, however, contrast against list_notes (browse all) or explain when a broad browse is preferable to a search, so the alternative routing is only partly covered.

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

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

The description explicitly discloses the critical behavioral trait: 'Deletes the old note and creates a new one', which is essential because a user might assume in-place modification. This transparency is high. No annotations are present to conflict.

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 only two sentences, front-loading the main action and then adding the important behavioral detail. Every part is informative, with no redundancy or extraneous text.

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?

Given the straightforward nature (3 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the core functionality and behavioral change. It lacks mention of error conditions or prerequisites (e.g., note must exist), but is otherwise sufficient for usage.

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%, but the description adds value by clarifying that the first line of markdown becomes the title (with or without #), which is not in the schema. This extends understanding beyond the parameter descriptions.

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 'Update an existing note in Apple Notes', specifying the verb (update), resource (note), and system (Apple Notes). It distinguishes from siblings like create_note and delete_note by describing that this tool deletes the old note and creates a new one, making it a unique replacement operation.

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 the tool (to update content while preserving folder) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools. Sibling tools are provided in context but not referenced in the description.

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