add_plan_note

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it saves a note, without mentioning whether it overwrites existing notes, appends, requires auth, or has any side effects. The phrase 'so future chats keep context' gives a purpose but no operational details.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and resource, followed by a concise purpose. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition.

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?

The tool is simple with only two parameters, but the description lacks behavioral transparency (e.g., overwrite behavior) and does not mention return values, which would be expected given no output schema. It is minimally viable but has clear gaps.

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 50% (month is described, content is not). The description does not clarify the content parameter or add format/meaning beyond what the schema already provides. It implicitly references month but adds no semantics for content.

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 action (Save), the resource (planning note), and the scope (for a month), making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like list_plan_notes. The purpose clause 'so future chats keep context' further clarifies its intent.

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 when to use the tool (to persist planning context across chats), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The context is clear but exclusions are absent.

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