manage_note

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states the read vs. write nature, maps actions to HTTP verbs, identifies required vs. optional parameters per action, and specifies the return shape. It stops short of detailing side effects such as delete permanence, overwrite semantics, or error behavior, but it is substantially transparent for a CRUD 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 well-structured with action breakdown, payload fields, Args, and Returns. The opening sentence and the following 'Writes: create, update, delete.' are slightly redundant, but the rest of the content is dense and purposeful, with key behavioral and parameter details front-loaded.

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?

For a five-parameter CRUD tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is quite complete: it explains action semantics, payload field examples, relevance to other objects' note_list fields, the analyze_dna connection, and the return contract. Minor gaps remain around full Note object schema and error/edge-case behavior, but the essential invocation context is present.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate, and it does comprehensively. The Args section explains each parameter in context: allowed action values, handle requirements by operation, data payload obligations, query as optional read-time parameters, and instance sourcing from get_instances. This adds real meaning beyond the bare schema fields.

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 opens with a clear CRUD verb and resource: 'Create, read, update or delete Gramps Note records.' It distinguishes manage_note from the many sibling manage_* tools by scoping to Note records, and the action-based breakdown removes ambiguity about what each operation does.

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 gives operation-specific guidance: `action=get` lists or fetches one note by handle, while create/update/delete have distinct payload and endpoint requirements. It also points to analyze_dna for DNA match segment strings in notes, offering a relevant sibling alternative, though it does not exhaustively list when not to use the tool.

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