add_link_to_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the ability to append/prepend and format as a list item, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether existing content is preserved, whether the target note must exist, or whether it handles duplicate links). It also gives no indication of return values or errors.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no filler. Every word earns its place, and it is appropriately concise for the tool's complexity.

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 has 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain return behavior, error conditions, or how the 'position' parameter maps to actual file modifications. It also misses opportunities to tie to sibling tools (e.g., append_to_note) for clarity.

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 does not add significant meaning beyond the schema; it reiterates placement but not details about displayText or asListItem. The schema already describes each parameter adequately.

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 action ('Add an internal link ([[note]]) to a note') and specifies the resource. It also mentions two placement options ('append to the end or insert at a specific location'), adding scope. However, the phrase 'insert at a specific location' is somewhat vague and undercuts sibling differentiation, as tools like insert_under_heading also insert at locations.

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. It doesn't mention exclusions (e.g., when to use update_note or append_to_note instead) or prerequisites (e.g., the note must exist). The sibling list shows many related tools, but the description fails to differentiate this one.

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