Record a file note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that the note is pinned to the current commit and that consumers can check whether the file has changed to judge trustworthiness. However, it does not disclose whether repeated calls append or overwrite notes, what happens if the file changes, or any permission/mutation implications.

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 two sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds only the high-value anchoring and trustworthiness context. Every clause 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?

The description covers the tool's purpose and its main downstream interaction with get_file_history, which is helpful. However, it leaves important operational gaps: parameter semantics for memberName, repeated-call behavior, and whether the note is one-per-file or one-per-commit. For a four-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, this is a moderate but not complete definition.

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 for the absence of parameter documentation. It partially does by mapping 'what you did, why' to the summary/reasoning fields and implying filePath via 'file', but it gives no meaning for memberName and leaves the relationship between summary and reasoning 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 names a specific verb and resource: attach a rationale note to a file. It also clarifies the content (what you did, why) and distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_file_history by describing the note as a commit-anchored comment rather than a retrieval or task-tracking operation.

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 phrase 'a file you finished touching' gives a clear trigger condition for when to use the tool. It also references get_file_history as the mechanism through which the note will later be surfaced, giving the agent a meaningful context signal. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but the timing guidance is strong enough.

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