add_or_update_note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It says 'Add or update' and notes that event_id is for updates, but does not explain mutation side effects, auth requirements, whether an update without event_id creates a duplicate or errors, or how existing data is affected. This is a material gap for a write-capable tool with no annotation coverage.

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 opens with one clear purpose sentence and then uses a compact argument list with no redundant prose. Each line adds information not inferable from the parameter name alone, and the format is scannable for an agent.

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?

The description plus output schema covers parameter invocation fairly well, but for a mutation tool with no annotations it leaves gaps around update-versus-create behavior, required auth context, and possible failure modes. The event_id update hint is useful, but an agent still lacks enough context to know what happens when adding a note that already exists or updating with a missing/invalid event_id.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate, and it does. Every parameter gets a meaningful natural-language explanation: name and description semantics, start_date format and default, color examples, athlete_id/api_key optionality, and event_id's role in updates. This gives an agent enough to correctly populate arguments.

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 action ('Add or update') and the resource ('a plain text note (category NOTE) on the Intervals.icu calendar'), using a specific verb and target. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_or_update_event by noting the note category 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 description implies usage for notes via 'plain text note (category NOTE)' and gives update guidance through 'event_id: optional, for updates', but it never explicitly states when to prefer this tool over add_or_update_event or other note/event tools. Usage context is present but not fully developed, and no exclusions or alternatives are named.

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