note_add

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

Goes well beyond the lone readOnlyHint=false annotation: it discloses that the reference mark and note text are tracked insertions, that rejecting them removes the note, that the notes part is created if absent, and what the call returns. Permission/author requirements and side effects on existing notes are not covered.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and anchor, then the undo semantics, then the return value. No filler and nothing buried.

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?

With no output schema, the description helpfully states the returned id, displayed number and address, and it explains the notes-part creation. Coverage of the optional parameters (tag, author, expect) is left entirely to the schema, a minor gap for an 8-parameter mutation tool.

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 75%, so most parameters (at, text, doc, dry_run) are already documented. The description reinforces the anchor semantics ('mark goes after the offset') and the one-line note text but says nothing about tag, author, or expect, adding only marginal meaning.

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 (Add) plus the two resource types (footnote/endnote) and the anchoring mechanism (body offset), which clearly separates it from siblings like xref_add, caption_add, or comments_list.

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?

Implies when it applies (adding a note at a body point) and constrains the anchor via 'at', but never names an alternative tool or states exclusions, so an agent must infer routing from the sibling list.

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