Save Note

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the mutation and scope profile is known. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the saved note becomes searchable like a bookmark and receives AI tags automatically. It omits what happens on duplicate text, whether the target list must already exist, and any failure behavior.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded. The examples of note types are compact and useful rather than padding.

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 explained, and the tool is conceptually simple with one required parameter. The description covers what a note is and its post-save behavior; the remaining gap is the interaction between the text/tags/title/list parameters and an existing sibling save_url.

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 60%, with tags and title undocumented in the schema, yet the description adds no meaning to any of the five parameters. Worse, 'gets AI tags' can be misread as tags being fully automatic, even though a manual 'tags' parameter exists, creating ambiguity rather than clarity.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Save a text note ... to Karakeep', with examples of what counts as a note (idea, quote, snippet). This implicitly separates it from save_url, but the description never names that sibling or states the boundary explicitly, so the differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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 parenthetical examples imply when to use it (short free text rather than a URL), but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance and no reference to save_url, save_bookmark, or update_bookmark as alternatives. An agent must infer the choice between saving a note and saving a URL.

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