Apple Notes MCP

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

Annotations indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds that it applies formatting to the 'entire note body', which clarifies scope beyond annotations. However, it doesn't detail side effects, permissions, or rate limits, relying on annotations for core behavioral traits.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 has an output schema and annotations covering safety, the description is adequate but minimal. It lacks details on parameter usage, error conditions, or formatting specifics, which could be helpful for a mutation tool despite structured data.

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 0%, but the description doesn't explain the parameters 'id' or 'mode'. The schema provides an enum for 'mode', but the description doesn't add meaning beyond the basic action. With two parameters and no schema descriptions, this is a minimal baseline.

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 ('apply simple formatting') and the target ('entire note body'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential formatting alternatives among its siblings, such as 'notes.append_text' or 'notes.update', which might also affect formatting.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or compare it to other formatting-related tools like 'notes.update' or 'notes.append_text', leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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