tasks_note

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-destructive mutation. The description adds that notes are appended and dated, which is useful behavioral context, but it does not describe return behavior, idempotency, or what happens to prior 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 with the action front-loaded and zero wasted words. The parenthetical examples are compact and informative.

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 simple two-parameter note-append tool with full schema coverage and non-destructive annotations, the description is nearly complete. A minor gap is that it does not mention confirmation or return behavior, though no output schema exists requiring that detail.

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 both parameters are already documented. The description adds examples of note content, but it does not add syntax or format details beyond the schema's 'Note text' and 'Item id' definitions.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Append a dated note to an item,' with examples of note content. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like tasks_log or tasks_edit.

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 (progress, decisions, pointers to patches) give clear context for when to use this tool. There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative, but the intended use is evident.

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