note_add

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It implies a mutation ('Add') but does not state whether the note is appended, whether the target item must exist, or what happens on failure. The warning about item_add is more usage guidance than behavioral transparency, leaving the tool's side effects under-specified.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence earns its place. The first sentence identifies the action and target; the second prevents a common misuse. No filler or redundant detail.

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 is a simple create operation with only two parameters and no output schema or annotations. The description covers the essential purpose and points to the alternative for trackable work, but lacks information about return values, prerequisites (e.g., does the item exist?), or how to retrieve the added notes. It is minimally viable but leaves notable gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It mentions 'specific item id' which clarifies that 'id' refers to an item identifier, but it does not explain the 'text' parameter's meaning beyond the schema's name. No formatting, examples, or additional constraints are provided, leaving the agent to infer the expected input.

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 verb ('Add') and resource ('a note to a specific item id'), making the tool's function unambiguous. It also differentiates from the sibling tool item_add by explicitly warning that notes are not substitutes for items, which prevents misuse.

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 explicitly tells the agent when not to use this tool: 'Notes are not substitutes for item_add(); create items for trackable work.' This directly addresses the most likely point of confusion with the sibling tool and gives clear selection guidance.

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