Capture

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-destructive write (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so safety is covered. The description adds useful context that the note lands in the Inbox and is intended for later filing, but says nothing about validation, limits, or what happens on failure.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the destination is stated immediately. It is efficient, though arguably terse enough to leave the parameter layer entirely undocumented.

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 return values need not be described, and the tool itself is simple (two params, one required). Still, with no annotation-level detail needed and zero parameter documentation, the description leaves the agent guessing about `title` and about how this differs from sibling write 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 description coverage is 0% for both parameters. The word "note" loosely maps to `text`, but `title` is never mentioned and there is no explanation of length limits, formatting, or whether title is optional in practice. The description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 states a concrete action and destination: a quick note placed in the Inbox. That is a specific verb+resource, though it never distinguishes itself from siblings like `write` or `log_interaction`, which could plausibly be used for the same intent.

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?

"To be filed later" implies the scenario for using this over a full write (fast, low-structure capture), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. Usage is left to inference.

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