wb_note_add

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool writes to the capsules table, preserves spaces and newlines in content, auto-parses hashtags, and enforces a confirm:true safety gate. It does not describe return values or failure modes, but the key side effects of this write operation are well covered.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the action first, then the target, CLI mapping, parameters, and required confirm flag. Minor redundancy exists because '#标签 自动解析' appears twice and the parameter sentence largely restates the schema, but there is no significant filler.

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 simple two-parameter note-add tool, the description covers required content, confirm requirement, storage behavior, and tag parsing. It lacks an explicit return/error description and there is no output schema, but an agent has enough information to correctly select and invoke the tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats the content and confirm semantics already present in the schema without adding new parameter-level meaning beyond what structured fields already provide.

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 writes a note ('写笔记') and identifies the target table ('capsules 表'), making the core action and resource unambiguous. It also gives the CLI mapping 'note add', which reinforces the add semantics. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like wb_note_edit or wb_add.

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 clear operational context: it is a write operation, requires confirm:true, and corresponds to the CLI command 'note add'. It does not, however, name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it lacks explicit exclusion guidance.

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