add-note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Add a new note' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description fails to disclose critical behavioral traits such as permissions required, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on conflicts (e.g., duplicate names), or what the response contains. This leaves significant gaps for safe and effective tool invocation.

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 extremely concise at just three words, with no wasted language. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Add a new note'). While this brevity contributes to under-specification in other dimensions, it meets the criteria for conciseness perfectly.

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 complexity (a write operation with two required parameters), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain the domain context (e.g., notes within a security or workload system hinted by sibling tools), parameter meanings, behavioral expectations, or return values. The agent lacks essential information for correct 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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning neither parameter ('name' or 'content') has any documentation in the schema. The description 'Add a new note' provides no additional semantic information about these parameters—it doesn't explain what 'name' represents (e.g., note title, identifier), what 'content' should contain, or any constraints/formatting. With two required parameters and zero coverage, the description fails to compensate.

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 'Add a new note' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'add-note' without providing meaningful elaboration. It does specify the verb 'add' and resource 'note', but fails to distinguish this tool from any potential sibling note-related tools (though none are listed among siblings). The purpose is minimally stated but lacks specificity about what kind of note system this operates within.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or comparison with sibling tools (e.g., whether notes are part of a larger system like workloads or rulesets). The agent receives no help in determining appropriate usage scenarios.

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