Add or Update Note

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the mutation action (create/update) and the note type, but does not mention permissions, what happens to existing notes, response format, or other side effects.

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 sentence in Indonesian, front-loading the action and adding the category context. It contains no filler or redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 relatively simple and the schema covers all parameters. However, the description does not explain the create-vs-update behavior triggered by eventId, nor does it mention authentication or output; given the lack of annotations, a bit more context would be beneficial.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all 7 parameters, including defaults and field-specific purposes. The description adds no additional parameter information, which is acceptable given the schema's completeness.

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 specific verb 'create or update', the resource 'plain text note (category NOTE)', and the scope 'in the Intervals.icu calendar'. This differentiates it from sibling tools for workouts, custom items, and events.

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 context is implied: this tool handles plain-text notes in the calendar, as opposed to workouts/custom items/events. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or specific use cases.

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