cb_note

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

The description only says 'update' and does not explain whether NOTES.md is overwritten, appended to, created if missing, or whether the branch must already exist. Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so there is no contradiction, but the description adds very little behavioral context beyond those 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?

The description is a single short sentence with no filler, and the core action and target are front-loaded. It is concise, though it sacrifices helpful detail for brevity.

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-update operation, the schema and annotations cover parameters and the side-effect profile reasonably well. However, the exact semantics of '更新'—whether it replaces the entire NOTES.md note or updates a specific portion—are not clarified, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

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 input schema already documents all three parameters (root, name, text) with 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('更新') and a clear target ('分支 NOTES.md 的备注'), which is enough to distinguish this tool from sibling tools like cb_rename, cb_status, cb_log, and cb_diff. Despite being terse, it is unambiguous about what resource is affected.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no preconditions, and no exclusions. It only states what the tool does, not the context in which it should be selected.

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