Add Note

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

Annotations already declare that the tool is not read-only and not destructive. The description adds minimal context ('quick', 'developer note or observation') but does not disclose side effects, whether an existing node is required, or how notes are stored/used. Beyond the annotations, transparency is limited.

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, direct sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. There is no redundancy or filler, making it appropriately concise and well-structured.

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 note-attachment tool with a 4-parameter schema and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose. However, it does not explain whether the note is persisted, requires an existing node, or how it affects node history. The annotations and schema fill some gaps, but the description alone leaves these aspects open.

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 schema provides full descriptions for all four parameters (100% coverage). The description's phrase 'to a node or the project' merely summarizes the attach_to and project parameters, adding no syntactic or format details. With high schema coverage, the description contributes little beyond what the schema already states.

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 uses a specific verb ('Attach') and resource ('note') with explicit scope ('to a node or the project'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_node or update_node. It is not a tautology and conveys the tool's primary function effectively.

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 attaching developer notes or observations, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives or when not to use it. For instance, it does not compare with post_blackboard or add_node. The usage context is only implied, not articulated.

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