add_note

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the description need not restate them. It adds useful context on the attachment mechanism and typical content, but says nothing about required permissions, whether the note is linked atomically, or what happens on failure. Adequate but not rich.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, no filler. The second sentence is slightly loose (use-case examples plus an attachment line) but each clause carries information.

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 create tool with full schema coverage, annotations carrying the safety profile, and no output schema, the description supplies the purpose and attachment semantics an agent needs. Missing only edge details like permission requirements or what the created note's handle looks like.

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 both target and target_type are already documented in the schema, and note_type carries its own default and example. The description adds only the relational hint that target + target_type go together, which is marginally beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 ('Create a research/general note') and clarifies the scope ('optionally attached to an object'), which cleanly separates it from the read-side sibling get_note. It is clear but never explicitly names a sibling tool or the boundary with add_attribute/add_url, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Explicitly says when to reach for it ('research logs, reasoning about conflicting evidence, or transcriptions') and how to attach it ('give target + target_type'). There is no when-not guidance or named alternative, so it falls just short of the top band.

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