add_field_note

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description's 'This writes to the backend' corroborates mutation but adds little new beyond the annotations. No mention of error behavior or whether notes are append-only vs overwriting.

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?

Two terse sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the write/safety profile. What remains missing is whether the zone must pre-exist and whether repeated notes overwrite or accumulate, a minor gap for such a simple tool.

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 50% — zone_id is documented in the schema with a format example, while note has only min/max length constraints. The description's 'short' hints at note brevity but adds no meaning beyond what the schema constraints convey.

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 and resource: 'Attach a short field observation to a zone.' This is clearly distinguishable from read-only siblings (list_zones, get_zone, rank_zones) by the write action. It doesn't name siblings explicitly, but the operation type makes selection obvious.

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?

Usage is implied by 'short field observation' — an agent can infer this is for brief, zone-scoped notes. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no note about prerequisites (e.g., whether the zone must exist).

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