task_note

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries most of the burden: it discloses that the operation is purely additive (append, not replace), that a timestamp is generated server-side, and that status is untouched despite being a write. It stops short of saying whether the write requires permissions, whether notes can later be edited/removed, or what the call returns.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core action first and the key constraint (no status change) trailing immediately after. Nothing is repeated from the name or title.

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 three-parameter append tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description covers the essential semantics and the key non-effect, which is enough to call it safely. However, the undocumented "by" parameter and the absence of any statement about what the caller gets back leave real gaps at 0% schema coverage.

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 0% across three parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. "text" is inferable from "note," but the optional "by" parameter is never explained (author? actor id? format?) and "id" is not stated to be a task identifier with any expected format. The timestamp mention is useful but describes an implicit behavior rather than a parameter.

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?

States a specific verb ("Append") and resource ("a timestamped note to a task") in one clause, and immediately bounds the effect with "Does not change status." The parenthetical use-case list (decisions, follow-ups, reasons) further narrows the intent. It does not name a sibling such as task_log or task_edit, so the differentiation from those is inferential rather than explicit.

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 parenthetical examples give clear situations to reach for this tool, and "in any status" removes the obvious precondition other task tools impose. "Does not change status" implicitly routes status changes to task_update/task_edit, but no alternative is named outright, so the exclusion is left for the agent to infer.

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