Removes notes in the right set from the left set by primary key, yielding the remaining notes for the current session.
subtract two Note sets, identified by primary keys and reloaded for this session.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| left | Yes | ||
| right | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals that inputs are identified by primary keys and that notes are 'reloaded for this session,' which is useful context beyond the schema. However, it does not clarify whether the operation mutates session state, is read-only, or what side effects 'reloaded' implies.
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 14-word sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core operation and then adds the key detail about primary keys and reloading. Every phrase earns its place.
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?
This simple tool has no annotations, no output schema, and no property descriptions, so the description must carry heavy context. It omits the result type or shape, the order of subtraction (left minus right vs right minus left), and any effect on the session beyond vaguely saying 'reloaded for this session.'
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. The phrase 'identified by primary keys' adds meaning to the left and right arrays as sets of note primary keys. However, the description does not explicitly define 'left' as the source set and 'right' as the set to remove, leaving the operand order ambiguous.
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 states a specific operation ('subtract') and resource ('Note sets'), and the sibling list includes subtract_customer/order/product, so 'subtract_note' is distinguishable by resource. It could be clearer that 'subtract' means set difference in a specific direction, but the verb and noun provide enough purpose.
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?
Usage context is implied by the phrase 'subtract two Note sets' and the sibling naming pattern (union_note, intersect_note, subtract_note), but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-to-use-alternative guidance. An agent could infer this is for set difference operations on Note collections, but no exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.