add_note

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behaviors but only says 'Add a note'. It does not mention prerequisites like an active drawing, idempotency, or side effects. The phrase 'current drawing' is present but not explained.

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?

Description is two sentences with front-loaded action. It efficiently covers core purpose and types of notes, though 'note or annotation' is slightly 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?

Given the existence of an output schema and full parameter descriptions, the description is adequate but lacks details on leader attachment behavior or positioning context. It is complete enough for basic understanding but not comprehensive.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets but does not exceed expectations.

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 it adds a note or annotation to the current drawing and lists use cases like text annotations and callouts. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tool 'add_annotation', which may overlap in functionality.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'add_annotation' or 'add_dimension'. It only implies general use for technical documentation, leaving the agent without clear selection criteria.

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