fenbs_add_context_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden well: it discloses the write requires permission to change tasks, that the note is signed with the assistant's name, and that a blank project scopes it globally. It also warns that every assistant reads both notes and decisions, implying visibility. It stops short of describing the response or what the note looks like once created.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and every sentence contributes routing or constraint information. The middle sentence is dense and slightly run-on ('those are decisions (fenbs_add_decision; a rule when it holds from now on)'), costing some readability, but there is no filler.

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 4-parameter write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential judgment call (fact vs decision), permission requirement, scoping, and the dedupe-first workflow. The only gap is what the caller gets back on success, which is minor absent an output schema.

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 100%, so all four parameters already carry their own descriptions, including 'omit for everything' for project and a default for category. The description restates the blank-project behavior without adding format, length, or validation detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ("Leave a context note for the next AI assistant") and immediately defines what qualifies as a note versus a decision. It explicitly names the sibling tools it is not (fenbs_add_decision) and the ones that continue the workflow (fenbs_list_context_notes, fenbs_update_context_note), so an agent can route correctly without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use (a fact nobody chose, how code works, a trap, where something lives) and when-not-to-use (rules, preferences, anything a person decided or instructed). It names concrete alternatives and the condition selecting them: existing note -> fenbs_update_context_note, standing rule -> fenbs_add_decision.

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