mark_note_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a real behavioral trait beyond the name: the update touches frontmatter only ('without rewriting the whole file') and syncs to a DB, and it flags a proposed→accepted→superseded lifecycle. However it says nothing about permissions, reversibility, or what happens if the status is invalid.

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?

Front-loaded one-line summary, then a rationale sentence, then an Args block. Every element earns its place, though the multi-line status list is slightly verbose and could be tightened.

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 no explanation, and the description covers the mutation, the DB sync side effect, and all valid status values. What is missing is failure/repair behavior and the note-type-to-status rules in fully explicit form.

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% and no enums are declared, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning — and it delivers: it enumerates every legal status value grouped by note type, notes the repair-only values, and gives a concrete path format example. It compensates well for the empty schema.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Update the frontmatter status field of a note') plus the side effect ('sync to DB'). The clause 'without rewriting the whole file' implicitly carves it apart from the sibling update_note, though no sibling is named 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?

'Use this to track note lifecycle' gives a clear purpose context, and the status groupings map note types to the correct values (general/project notes vs decision/ADR notes). No explicit when-not-to-use or named alternatives, but the domain mapping is strong enough that an agent can pick the right status.

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