merge_notes

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 discloses the merge behavior (append under divider, migrate images, trash source), the direct SQLite write, and the need to quit the app. This is transparent for a mutation tool, though it could mention reversibility.

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 plus a short context line, front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is well-structured and efficient.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown), the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the main behavior, prerequisites (app must be quit), and a preview option. It could mention error conditions, but overall is complete for this context.

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 0%, but the description compensates by explaining the effect of source_note_id and target_note_id, and mentioning dry_run and trash_source with their defaults and advice to use dry_run. It adds meaning beyond the bare parameter names.

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 merges one note into another, appending content with a divider, migrating images, and trashing the source. It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes itself from siblings by giving a use case for triaging inbox/whiteboard notes into canonical notes.

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 explicitly recommends using dry_run=true to preview and warns that the app must be quit due to direct SQLite writes. It also states the ideal use case for triaging notes. However, it does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use this tool.

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