apple_notes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Control Apple Notes' and lists actions. It does not mention that delete is destructive, that confirm is needed for protected actions, or that some actions are read-only, which are critical operational details.

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 concise at two sentences, front-loading the domain and providing an action list. It avoids unrelated detail, though the action list is redundant with the schema's enum, making it slightly less efficient but still an appropriate quick overview.

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?

The tool is complex with 7 parameters and 9 actions, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description is just a summary list. It does not address return values, limitations, prerequisites, or usage scenarios, relying entirely on the schema for details, which leaves the description incomplete for confident selection and invocation.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage, including detailed descriptions for each action enum value. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, merely repeating the action names, so the schema's comprehensive coverage warrants a baseline score of 3.

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 manages Apple Notes and enumerates nine specific actions (list, create, read, search, delete, folders, move, append, count), making its purpose obvious. However, the verb 'Control' is generic and there is no explicit differentiation from sibling tools like apple_reminders, so it doesn't achieve a perfect score.

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, nor any context for selecting among the listed actions. It lacks any 'use case' statements or comparisons with sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage from the schema.

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