add_planner_note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. 'Add' implies a mutation but the description doesn't disclose what happens on duplicate notes at the same slot, whether it overwrites existing entries, or what the response looks like. For a write operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a meaningful gap.

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?

One efficient sentence with zero filler and a useful example embedded. It earns its space with the concrete scenario, though it could trade some brevity for behavioral detail.

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 3-param tool with a clear example, it's mostly adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it lacks disclosure of edge cases (duplicate handling, response format) that an agent might need. The core call is understandable, but not fully 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The example 'Defrost chicken' on Tuesday breakfast' maps loosely to title/date/section, adding some semantic grounding, but it doesn't explicitly explain each parameter's meaning, constraints, or format beyond what the schema already encodes (date pattern, section enum). With 0% coverage, this is insufficient compensation.

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?

Clear verb ('Add') + specific resource ('freeform note entry to a meal slot') with a concrete example. It distinguishes itself from siblings like add_planner_recipe and add_planner_ingredient by emphasizing 'freeform' note, which tells the agent this is for arbitrary text rather than structured data.

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 example implies the use case, but the description doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like add_planner_recipe, add_planner_ingredient, or add_leftover_meal. The word 'freeform' weakly hints at distinguishing from recipe/ingredient additions, but there's no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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