add_note

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

Annotations indicate non-read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by explaining the audit trail nature, typed notes, and optional directive linking. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful context beyond the structured fields.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose and key features (audit trail, typed notes, directive linking). No redundant or unnecessary 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?

Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, 2 required) and thorough schema, the description adequately covers purpose and usage context. It does not explain return values, but output schema is absent. The description is sufficient for an agent to decide when to use this tool among many siblings.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all 8 parameters. The description mentions 'typed notes' and 'optional directive linking,' which aligns with note_type and directive_name, but adds little extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 tool's purpose: recording decisions, architecture changes, or context events in the project's audit trail. It specifies 'typed notes with optional directive linking,' which distinguishes it from sibling note tools like 'add_tracking_note' or 'add_user_directive_note'.

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 clear usage context by listing example note types (decision, architecture change, context event). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative tools for specific note purposes, though the sibling list implies alternatives.

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