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. It implies a mutation but does not disclose whether the note is appended or replaces existing context, what permissions are required, or what the tool returns.

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 definition is short and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first and an example second. It avoids unnecessary repetition, though the example could be seen as slightly redundant with the purpose sentence.

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?

As a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter, the description should do more. It doesn't explain persistence, side effects, or when to prefer this over closely related siblings such as add_finding.

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 single parameter is undocumented in the schema (0% coverage), but the description partially compensates by calling it free-text context and showing an example value. It still lacks constraints, formatting expectations, or length limits.

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 uses a clear verb/resource pair: adding free-text context to a case. It distinguishes itself somewhat from siblings like add_finding or register_evidence by emphasizing free-text notes, but it doesn't explicitly contrast the alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use add_note versus add_finding, register_evidence, or update_case. The example clarifies the shape of a call but not the decision criteria for choosing this tool.

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