goalstory_update_step_notes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Update step notes' implying a mutation, but lacks details on permissions, whether notes are appended or replaced, error handling, or response format. The mention of 'markdown format' adds some context, but behavioral disclosure is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 concise with two sentences that are front-loaded and relevant. However, the second sentence ('Use this to capture...') could be more integrated into the first for better flow, and some redundancy exists with the schema descriptions.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and a mutation tool with two parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, error cases, and response expectations, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an AI agent.

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%, with both parameters ('id' and 'notes') well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value by reinforcing 'notes' as 'additional context, insights, or reflections in markdown format,' but doesn't provide new semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 verb ('Update step notes') and the resource ('step notes'), specifying the content format ('markdown format') and purpose ('capture valuable information from discussions'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'goalstory_update_step', which likely updates different step attributes beyond notes.

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 provides minimal guidance with 'Use this to capture valuable information from discussions,' which implies usage for note-taking but offers no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions. No comparison to sibling tools like 'goalstory_update_step' is made.

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