add_note_to_knowledge_base

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavior disclosure. It mentions that the note must already exist and that a notebook_id can be repurposed as note_id, but it does not mention side effects, permissions, or error conditions. This is minimal but not fully transparent.

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 consists of two sentences, with the purpose front-loaded and the prerequisite guidance in the second sentence. Every word contributes value.

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 add operation with no output schema, the description is adequate: it states the purpose, explains how to obtain the key parameter, and references prerequisites. It could optionally mention failure behavior, but the tool is straightforward.

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 covers all four parameters with descriptions, including the nuance that note_id can be a doc_id or notebook_id. The description repeats this information without adding new meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 clear action: '将已有的 IMA 笔记添加到知识库' (add an existing IMA note to the knowledge base). The word '已有的' (existing) distinguishes this tool from create_note, which creates new notes.

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?

It provides explicit prerequisites for obtaining note_id: either create_note to get a doc_id, or use get_media_info's notebook_id. This gives clear context for when to use the tool and how to prepare inputs, though it doesn't directly contrast with sibling tools.

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