Write work-note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It discloses that notes are dated, namespaced, and persisted (recall later), but it omits details like whether notes append or overwrite, error behavior, or any permission requirements.

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 three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes only relevant guidance on namespacing and self-containment. No fluff or redundancy.

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 what, when, and namespace behavior, and mentions persistence via recall. However, it does not specify the tool's return value, failure modes, or any limits, and there is no output schema to fill that gap. It is adequate but not exhaustive.

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?

The input schema already describes all three parameters comprehensively (100% coverage). The description adds modest context by explaining the project namespace and advising self-contained text, but it adds no new meaning for the tags parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 writes a dated work-note/diary entry into the scratchbook, with specific examples (what you're doing, decision, finding, bug). It differentiates itself from sibling tools by explicitly pointing to scratchbook_recall for retrieval, making it clear this is the write 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 description gives concrete usage contexts (what to record) and explains the namespace options (project vs global). It also names scratchbook_recall as the alternative for reading notes later, though it does not explicitly list when not to use this tool beyond that.

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