Assign a note to a category, creating it if needed and moving attachments along. Pass an empty string to remove the note from all categories.
Move a note to a category, creating the category if it does not exist. Pass "" to make the note uncategorized. Any attachments move with the note.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| etag | No | ||
| category | Yes | "/"-delimited path; "" for uncategorized. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=true, idempotent=true, openWorld=true). The description adds useful context: categories are created on the fly and attachments move with the note. It does not detail permissions or what specifically gets destroyed, but the added context is valuable.
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?
Three short, front-loaded sentences with no wasted words. The primary action, special case, and side effect are stated efficiently.
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?
Given a 3-parameter tool with low schema coverage and no output schema, the description is adequate but leaves gaps. It covers the category parameter and side effects, but does not explain the optional etag parameter, which is important for correct invocation.
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 coverage is 33% (only the category parameter is described). The description's category guidance (empty string means uncategorized) merely repeats the schema, and neither id nor etag is explained. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate for the undocumented parameters.
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 ('Move a note to a category') and adds two distinctive behaviors: category auto-creation and attachment movement. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like list_categories or rename_category.
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?
Explains the special case of passing an empty string for uncategorized notes, but does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_note or rename_category. Usage is implied rather than explicitly guided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.