Add a Text Note

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

The annotations already establish that this is a non-read-only but non-destructive operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating that the tool returns the note's id and by clarifying the logical-workspace placement, though it does not describe whether notes can overlap or require specific permissions.

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 front-loaded with the core action and return value, followed by concise examples that earn their place by illustrating intended usage. There is no redundant or filler text.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return structure in detail, and it does state that an id is returned. For a three-parameter annotation tool, the definition is complete enough to invoke correctly, though it could better address placement behavior and sibling annotation tools.

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 67%: x and y are documented in the schema as logical-workspace pixel coordinates, but the required text parameter has no schema description. The description supplies examples of text content but does not explain coordinate defaults, placement semantics, or text formatting beyond what the examples imply.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Place a text note on the logical workspace,' and provides examples that clarify what counts as a text note. It distinguishes itself implicitly from line/circle annotation siblings by emphasizing text notes, but it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 examples imply good use cases such as subnet labels, VLAN descriptions, addressing tables, and lab instructions. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this instead of add_line_annotation, add_circle_annotation, or edit_text_note, so guidance is contextual rather than explicit.

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