batch_add_notes_to_topic

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one real trait, the 20-notes-per-batch cap, but says nothing about what happens when a note already belongs to the topic, partial-failure behavior when some IDs are invalid, permission requirements, or reversibility of the addition.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the resource and the key constraint, zero filler. It is efficient, though its brevity leaves the gaps noted in other dimensions rather than being padded.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and three parameters. The description covers purpose and the size cap but leaves the agent without error/partial-success semantics or permission expectations, which is not enough context for a bulk write operation.

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 topic_id, note_ids and directory_id are already documented in the schema. The description only restates the 20-item limit already present in the note_ids field description and adds no semantics about ordering, duplicates, or directory_id interaction. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Placeholder — see above.

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 批量 (batch) implies bulk use and the 20-item cap implies you should chunk larger sets, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., topic ownership or membership), and no named alternative for single-note adds.

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