Add a note

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false, openWorld=false), and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the visible effect (a flag on visibility and keyword rank charts) and a hard validation rule ('a future day is refused'). What it omits is uniqueness/idempotency semantics, which matters for an idempotentHint=false tool.

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?

Front-loads purpose, then behavior, then return shape, then the key constraint. Four compact sentences with no filler. Slightly dense but every sentence carries information.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by specifying the exact return shape ({ app_id, note: { id, day, text, scope } }) plus the display side-effect and the day constraint. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 schema already documents day, text, scope, and app_id in detail. The description largely echoes the schema's 'today or earlier' constraint rather than adding new meaning, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Add a note to an application's charts') and fleshes out what a note represents with concrete examples (campaign, metadata change, launch, price change). An agent can immediately distinguish this from siblings like update_note, list_notes, or compare_events.

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?

Gives clear usage context — notes annotate events for later before/after measurement — and points to the downstream sibling compare_events. However, it doesn't state when *not* to use it or contrast with update_note/delete_note beyond implication, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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