note_add

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and largely drops it. It does not explain that agent_token/claim_generation likely govern authorization, whether notes are append-only or replaceable, mutation side effects, or error behavior for an invalid item id.

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 short sentences, the core action is front-loaded, and the second sentence does real routing work rather than padding. No wasted language.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema documentation, the description is too thin. An agent cannot tell from this how to satisfy the auth/claim parameters or what success looks like.

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% across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate and only implicitly covers id and text. The four identity/claim parameters (agent_token, client_agent_id, claim_generation, client_session_id) are left entirely unexplained, including whether they are required in practice.

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 (add) and resource (note) scoped to an item id, which is a precise action an agent can act on. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling item_add, though it doesn't differentiate from note_update/note_get/note_list.

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?

Provides an explicit when-not: 'Notes are not substitutes for item_add(); create items for trackable work', which routes the agent to the correct sibling for durable work items. It lacks guidance on when to use note_update or note_list instead, but the primary exclusion is stated clearly.

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