carrel_note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It implies a persistent write to the desk db but says nothing about whether notes accumulate, whether duplicates are allowed, ordering of listed notes, permissions, or what either mode 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?

One compact sentence with the primary write mode front-loaded ahead of the list mode, and no filler. It could be tightened only slightly by tying each clause to its action value.

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?

For a two-mode tool with four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description leaves too much unexplained: what listing returns, whether an empty result is possible, and how root resolution affects the note's identity are all unaddressed.

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 coverage is 75%, so the schema already documents body, path, and root. The description reinforces body as free text and path as the owning file, but adds nothing about the root parameter or how action interacts with optional body.

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 states a specific verb ("Attach") and resource ("note") plus the target ("a file in the desk db") and a second mode ("list its notes"). It is clearly distinct from siblings like carrel_tag or carrel_search, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 two modes map onto the action enum and the word "or" signals the choice, so usage is implied. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to add versus list, no prerequisites, and no comparison with closely related tools such as carrel_tag.

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