set_domain_note

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states that the tool sets a note and/or moves a domain, but it does not explain what happens if the note is empty, whether the folder must pre-exist, or if the operation is reversible. This lack of detail is a significant gap for a modification tool.

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 a single sentence with no redundant information, making it concise and front-loaded. However, it could be slightly expanded to include behavioral context without losing conciseness, so a perfect score is not given.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description is insufficiently complete. It fails to specify return values, error conditions, or whether the note and folder updates are independent or interdependent. The agent lacks context 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the parameters are already documented. The description adds minimal value by implying that both 'note' and 'folder' are optional (via 'and/or'), but this is already evident from the schema since only 'domain' is required. Thus, the description neither enhances nor detracts from the schema's information.

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: 'Set a note and/or move a domain to a folder for organization.' It specifies the verb ('Set'), the resource ('domain note'), and the additional action ('move to folder'), which distinguishes it from other domain management tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'set_folder_settings' or 'create_folder', so a perfect score is not warranted.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'create_folder' or 'set_folder_settings'. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or context for when this tool is appropriate, leaving the agent without clear usage criteria.

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