romm_add_note

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions that notes belong to the user and that is_public controls visibility, but does not disclose other behaviors such as persistence, idempotency, or error conditions.

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 extremely concise, with each sentence adding value. The purpose is front-loaded, and the parameter details are clearly listed without redundancy.

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 description covers parameter usage thoroughly, but given that an output schema exists, the description does not explain return values or error handling. It is nearly complete for a tool of this complexity.

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 has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the tool description compensates fully by explaining each parameter: rom_id, title (required), content (optional markdown), tags (optional list), and is_public (default false). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema types.

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's function: 'Add a note to a ROM. The note belongs to you.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like romm_delete_note and romm_update_note.

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 context (note ownership, visibility) but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like romm_update_note or romm_delete_note. No prerequisites or when-not-to-use conditions are mentioned.

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