add_research_note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Add' implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose permissions required, whether notes are editable/deletable, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's purpose without redundancy. It's appropriately front-loaded and every word earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permissions or side effects, doesn't differentiate usage from siblings, and lacks details on return values or error handling. Given the complexity of adding data in a task management context, more context is needed.

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%, with both parameters ('task_id' and 'content') clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain note formatting, length limits, or how 'task_id' relates to other tools. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Add') and resource ('research note to a task'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'add_task_note' by specifying it's for 'research' notes rather than general task notes. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from 'add_execution_note', leaving some ambiguity about when to use each note type.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'add_task_note' or 'add_execution_note'. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing task), exclusions, or typical scenarios for research notes versus other note types. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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