note

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

Annotations indicate non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent. The description adds key context: reopening threads, making them active, and the safety of auto-close. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence. The description is somewhat lengthy but every sentence adds value. Minor improvement could be more structured separation of usage and behavior.

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 output schema exists, the description covers key behaviors and parameter semantics. The reopening behavior and kind options are explained, making it reasonably complete for a note-adding 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?

The description adds semantic meaning for the 'kind' parameter by explaining its options and purpose. However, 'thread_id' and 'content' are not described beyond their names in the schema, leaving some gaps despite 0% schema coverage.

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 'Add a note to a thread' with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes the tool by explaining its reopening behavior, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'brief' or 'respond'.

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?

Provides style guidance ('Write terse, optimized for future-Claude') and explains the kinds of notes. It also clarifies when to use the tool (on idle or closed threads) and the consequence (reopening). However, it lacks explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance.

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