rt_add_note

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and largely delivers. It discloses a notable behavioral trait ('Two-call gate') and explains the visibility semantics for shared hiring records. It drops a point because 'two-call gate' is cryptic — the agent isn't told what the two calls are or how confirm factors into them.

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?

Three tightly written sentences with front-loaded purpose and no fluff. Each sentence contributes new information. Slight deduction because 'Accepts a name or an id' restates candidate param detail, and the cryptic 'Two-call gate' fragment could have been replaced with a half-sentence explanation at no length cost.

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 4-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers a lot: purpose, usage boundaries, a behavioral quirk, and visibility implications. Gaps remain — no return value discussion, no explanation of the two-call flow or when confirm is needed — but the most decision-critical context is present.

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 coverage is 50%, so the description must compensate for body and confirm. It adds 'Two-call gate' (a hint at confirm's role) and 'Accepts a name or an id' (redundant with the candidate param). Body is never addressed, and confirm's role is only hinted at. Partial compensation, so a 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 leads with a specific verb+resource pair, 'Add a note to a candidate', and immediately carves out scope with 'context that is not a verdict'. The examples (assessment summary, sourcing rationale, call recap) clearly distinguish it from the sibling rt_submit_evaluation, so the agent can differentiate at a glance.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance with concrete examples and an exclusion clause ('not a verdict') that points toward when NOT to use it. While it doesn't name the sibling tool (rt_submit_evaluation) directly, the 'not a verdict' contrast plus the visibility default explanation gives clear decision context.

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