better-bear

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it clarifies that this is a 'soft delete' and notes can be recovered from Bear's trash, which is not covered by the annotations (destructiveHint=true only indicates mutation). It does not contradict annotations, as destructiveHint=true aligns with a delete operation, and the description enhances understanding of the deletion's nature.

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 front-loaded and concise, with two sentences that efficiently convey the action, behavioral detail, and parameter context without any wasted words. Each sentence earns its place by adding clarity and necessary information.

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 complexity (a destructive operation with one parameter) and the presence of annotations (which cover safety and idempotency), the description is mostly complete. It explains the soft delete nature and recovery option, but lacks details on output or error handling. Since there is no output schema, some gaps remain, but it provides sufficient context for basic use.

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 description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage and fully documents the 'id' parameter. It mentions that the note is identified by its ID, but this is redundant with the schema. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 specific action ('Move a Bear note to the trash') and resource ('a Bear note'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'bear_archive_note' or 'bear_list_notes' by specifying the trash operation. It avoids tautology by explaining what the tool does beyond just the name.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (to move a note to trash) and implies an alternative (recovery from trash), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it to other deletion or archival options among siblings. It offers basic guidance without exclusions.

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