Attach Git Note

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It helpfully discloses the target ref namespace and the HEAD default, but omits whether an existing note is overwritten, whether git repo state is required, and what the call returns — meaningful gaps for a write operation.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and the ref, followed by the default. Nothing is wasted and nothing critical is buried.

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 one-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the core identity but leaves out overwrite semantics, permission/repo requirements, and note content — details an agent needs before invoking a mutating 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 100% and the single commitRef parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only restates the HEAD default, adding no format examples or edge-case meaning.

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 ('Attach') and resource ('LogNexus state as a Git Note') plus the exact ref (refs/notes/lognexus). It implicitly distinguishes itself from the read-side sibling lognexus_note_show, though it never names it.

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 only implied: the agent can infer this writes a note to a commit, but nothing says when to prefer it over lognexus_commit, lognexus_note_show, or lognexus_state_sync, nor any prerequisites like being in a git repository.

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