Document notes

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description explicitly mentions delete, which is consistent and non-contradictory. However, it adds no additional behavioral context beyond what annotations and the action list already convey, such as irreversibility of deletion or that adding appends to existing notes.

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?

A single sentence efficiently conveys the core capability without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the action list and resource, and every word adds meaning. This is appropriately concise for a multi-action CRUD tool.

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?

The description is short but adequate given the absence of an output schema and the presence of annotations that cover safety. It does not detail return values or the effect of the default 'list' action, but those are implied by the action enum and not critical for a basic call. The required parameter relationships are documented in schema descriptions, so the agent can correctly construct calls.

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 value by clarifying when note and note_id are required, complementing the schema's 75% coverage which lacks description for 'action'. It explains 'Note text. Required for add' and 'Note id. Required for delete', which is not in the schema description. This helps the agent map parameters to actions.

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 operates on document notes with three distinct actions: list, add, delete. It mentions the resource (document) and the actions, making the purpose explicit. It distinguishes from siblings like paperless_update_document by focusing on notes, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus other tools, such as paperless_update_document or paperless_bulk_edit_documents. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools for related operations. Usage context is only implicit through the actions list.

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