note_entity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that notes are linked via wiki-links and returns the entity name, which are useful behavioral traits beyond annotations. Could be improved by noting if notes are overwritten, but overall good.

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 sentences plus an example list, front-loaded with purpose. No unnecessary words; every sentence adds information.

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 rich schema and annotations, the description is nearly complete. It clearly explains the tool's purpose, usage, parameters, and return value. Minor gap: does not specify whether existing notes are updated or appended, but overall sufficient.

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%, but the description adds value by explaining that 'name' becomes a wiki-link target and providing examples, and 'content' is a durable fact. It also clarifies the default for 'project'.

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 verb and resource: 'Record durable, long-lived project knowledge on an entity note.' It also distinguishes from the sibling 'log_event' by specifying use for facts that outlive a single session, and mentions wiki-links and knowledge graph for added clarity.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use this tool vs 'log_event': 'Use this (rather than log_event) for facts that outlive a single session' and provides concrete examples like architecture, conventions, etc.

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