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-open-world, non-idempotent, and non-destructive operation, covering basic safety. The description adds context about background execution, which is useful beyond annotations, but doesn't detail performance impacts, completion time, or error handling, limiting behavioral insight.

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 front-loads the core action ('Builds a local search index over all notes') and adds a key behavioral note ('runs in background') without any wasted words, making it highly 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?

Given the tool's complexity (background indexing operation), annotations provide safety hints, and an output schema exists, reducing the need for return value explanation. However, the description lacks details on triggers, completion signals, or interactions with siblings, leaving gaps for effective agent use.

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 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the input schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, so it meets the baseline for this scenario, though it could note that no configuration is required.

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 ('Builds') and target resource ('a local search index over all notes'), specifying it runs in the background. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'notes.index_search' or 'notes.index_status', which are related but serve different purposes (searching and checking status vs. building).

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 mentions the background execution but doesn't specify prerequisites, timing (e.g., after note updates), or exclusions compared to siblings like 'notes.index_search' or 'notes.index_status', leaving usage context unclear.

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