add-note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'add' but does not mention validation, date format requirements, whether existing entries with the same date are overwritten, or what happens on success/failure. This is minimal for a mutation tool.

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 is a single short sentence, which is concise and front-loaded. There is no wasted wording, though it is quite sparse. It earns its place by stating the tool's basic function.

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 tool has no output schema, no annotations, and low schema coverage. For a mutation tool, the description should provide more context about return values, error behavior, or required formats. The current description is too thin to fully guide an agent in invoking the tool correctly.

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 the description does not explain the parameters. The parameter names 'date' and 'content' are somewhat self-explanatory, but no format details (e.g., ISO date, content length) are provided. The description adds little over the raw 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?

The description '日記を追加します' clearly states the action (add) and the resource (diary/note). Given the sibling tool 'get-note', it distinguishes the write operation from the read operation, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus get-note. The sibling name implies usage (add vs get), but the description lacks any context about prerequisites, alternatives, or conditions for use. Without annotation support, the agent gets no clear direction.

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