reading_submit_user_notes

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits: it includes chunk text by default once per session and marks notes as submitted to avoid resending. This adds value beyond annotations, but could further clarify what 'submitted' entails (e.g., irreversibility).

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 purpose, no wasted words. The description is efficiently 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?

Given 6 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It covers the basic purpose and default behavior but omits parameter explanations, expected outcomes, error cases, and prerequisites, leaving the agent guessing.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 6 parameters, the description fails to explain any parameter's purpose or default values. The only hint is the phrase 'include each chunk's full text once per session' which loosely relates to contextMode, but no explicit parameter mapping is provided.

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 tool submits open user notes for Claude review, with specific default behavior. The verb 'submit' and resource 'user notes' are precise, and the tool is distinct from sibling tools like reading_list_submissions and reading_read_submission.

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 implies usage for submitting user notes for review and notes the default behavior, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternative tools. However, the context of sibling tools makes the usage clear.

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