can_add_notes

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

With no annotations, the description should fully disclose behavior. It mentions return type (booleans, error detail) and input shape similarity but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, idempotent, or has no side effects. This is a notable gap for a validation tool.

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 concise sentences. The first sentence front-loads the purpose, the second adds return value and input reference. No redundant or missing words.

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 the tool's simplicity and existence of an output schema (not shown but mentioned), the description covers core aspects: purpose, return format, and input shape clue. Minor gaps include lack of error detail specifics and explicit safety guarantees.

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 0%. The description references 'same note shape as add_notes' for the single parameter, which adds some meaning but lacks explicit details about the object structure. This is insufficient given the vague schema with additionalProperties: true.

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 checks if notes could be added without actually adding them, using a verb (check) and a specific resource (notes validity). It also distinguishes from sibling add_notes by noting it returns status vs performing the action.

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 as a pre-check before add_notes but does not explicitly state when to use, when not to use, or mention alternatives among many sibling tools. No exclusions or context are provided.

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