monica_note

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

With no annotations provided, the description partially compensates by warning that delete is irreversible. However, it fails to disclose other behavioral traits like authentication requirements, side effects of other actions, or rate limits.

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 concise with two sentences, front-loading the core purpose. Every word earns its place, though it could be more structured (e.g., grouping actions by type).

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 has 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the output format of list/get, the meaning of 'body' or 'contact_id', or the context for using each action. The agent lacks enough information to use the tool correctly.

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 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond listing actions; it does not explain how parameters like 'id' relate to specific actions or provide usage patterns.

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 handles notes and lists specific actions (list, get, create, update, delete). This verb+resource clarity distinguishes it from other monica_* sibling tools, though it could be more specific about what constitutes a note.

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 the tool is for note management but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or which action to choose. The action parameter descriptions in the schema help, but the description itself lacks context.

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