Apple Notes MCP

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

Annotations indicate this is a mutable operation (readOnlyHint: false) that is non-destructive (destructiveHint: false) and closed-world (openWorldHint: false), but the description adds minimal behavioral context. It implies the tool can toggle or set a boolean state, which aligns with the 'checked' parameter, but doesn't detail effects (e.g., if it updates a note in place) or constraints (e.g., rate limits). The description doesn't contradict annotations, so it's scored based on adding some value beyond them.

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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core action without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the main purpose, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence serves a purpose, achieving optimal conciseness.

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 (3 parameters, 2 required) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations covering behavioral nuances and low schema coverage, it should provide more context on usage and parameters to be fully helpful. It meets a baseline but has clear gaps in guidance and semantics.

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 description must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation in the schema. It mentions 'by index', which hints at the 'index' parameter, but doesn't explain 'id' (likely a note or checklist identifier) or 'checked' (the boolean to set). This leaves two of three parameters inadequately described, failing to fully address the schema 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 states the action ('toggle or set') and target ('checklist item by index'), which clarifies the tool's purpose beyond the title. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'notes.add_checklist' or 'notes.remove_checklist'—it mentions toggling/setting but not how it differs from adding or removing checklist items, leaving some ambiguity about its specific role.

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 (e.g., needing an existing checklist), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'notes.add_checklist' or 'notes.remove_checklist'. Without such context, an agent might struggle to choose the correct tool for modifying checklist items.

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