add-note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Add a new note' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no information about permissions needed, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on failure, rate limits, or what the tool returns. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 maximally concise with just three words. While this represents under-specification rather than ideal conciseness, from a pure structural perspective, every word earns its place and there's zero waste or 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 is completely inadequate given the context. This is a mutation tool (implied by 'add') with no annotations, no output schema, and 2 undocumented required parameters. The description fails to provide necessary information about what the tool does, how to use it properly, what it returns, or how it relates to sibling 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%, meaning neither parameter ('name' and 'content') has any documentation in the schema. The description provides no information about these parameters - it doesn't mention them at all, explain what they represent, their formats, constraints, or examples. For a tool with 2 required parameters, this leaves critical information undocumented.

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 'Add a new note' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'add-note' without adding meaningful specificity. It mentions the verb 'add' and resource 'note', but doesn't distinguish what type of note, where it's added, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'delete-all-notes' or 'get-temperature'.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or when not to use it. With sibling tools like 'delete-all-notes' that perform destructive operations, this lack of guidance could lead to incorrect tool selection.

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