Apple Notes MCP

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, indicating this is a non-destructive write operation without open-world assumptions. The description adds that it appends 'plain text' (not formatted content) to a 'note body', which provides useful context beyond annotations. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens if the note doesn't exist.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately understandable. Every word earns its place without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (mutation with 2 parameters), annotations cover safety aspects, and an output schema exists (so return values are documented elsewhere), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks guidance on usage versus siblings and doesn't fully address parameter semantics given the 0% schema coverage, leaving gaps in contextual understanding.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description mentions 'note body' (implied target) and 'plain text' (implied content), which loosely map to the 'id' and 'text' parameters but lack specifics like format requirements or constraints. It adds marginal semantic value but doesn't fully compensate for the schema coverage gap.

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 ('Append plain text') and target resource ('to a note body'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like notes.update or notes.apply_format, which might also modify note content. The purpose is unambiguous but lacks sibling distinction.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like notes.update, notes.add_checklist, or notes.apply_format. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., note must exist), exclusions, or comparative context with sibling tools. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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