add_text

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic operation. It doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether this is a mutating operation (implied but not explicit), what happens if the note doesn't exist, whether changes are reversible, permission requirements, or rate limits. For a tool that modifies data without annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity. Every word earns its place.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It should address behavioral aspects like error conditions (e.g., invalid note ID), what the operation returns, and whether it's idempotent. The current description provides only basic operational intent without necessary context for safe 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 4 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (like explaining the 'mode' enum choices or interaction between 'id' and 'title'). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('append or prepend text') and target resource ('to an existing note'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_note (creates new notes) and get_note (reads notes). The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.

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 implies usage by specifying 'to an existing note', suggesting it should not be used for creating new notes (use create_note instead). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose append vs. prepend modes or alternatives like replace operations, and doesn't mention prerequisites like note existence verification.

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