Record a note

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

Annotations are not contradictory: readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description conveys a write operation but doesn't discuss overwriting, updates, or whether existing entries get merged. It adds the intended persistence context, which annotations alone would not provide.

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?

One sentence, 3 clauses, completely dense, no filler. Packs a lot of informational words: resource, content categories, purpose. Well-formatted and front-loaded.

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?

There is an output schema, a simple model, and sibling tools that create no ambiguity. The description doesn't explain all edge cases like duplicates or retention policy, but with full schema and a single-purpose persist tool this reaches the high end of viable.

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?

The schema covers both params (content, category) at 100% coverage with descriptions. The 'category' description specifies which memory section it belongs to, and 'content' adds length/format limits. Description here slightly enriches the schema on intended use.

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 uses the specific verb 'persist' with the resource 'project note' and lists note types (gotcha, convention, learning, todo), distinguishing it from sibling tools that manage context, decisions, plans, or context lists. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when-not conditions.

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 states the note should be remembered by future sessions, implying cross-session persistence. It doesn't mention when to prefer this over alternatives, but the category and memory intent provide clear context.

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