add_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the return (Note ID and similar notes) and mentions semantic search integration. However, it does not clarify if the tool is only usable during active step execution or what happens if called outside that context.

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 concise, with a front-loaded summary, followed by parameter details, return info, and next steps. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 and presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and parameters. However, it lacks explicit prerequisites (e.g., must be within a step) and does not clarify relationship to sibling tools like provide_input.

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 provides detailed parameter descriptions (e.g., 'Campaign UUID', 'What you found. Be specific.', 'Optional tags for filtering (e.g. ["finding", "citation"])'), adding significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 'Record a noteworthy finding during step execution' with a specific verb (record) and resource (note), and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_notes and search_notes by focusing on creation.

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 some workflow context (e.g., 'Next: Continue your work. Call complete_step when done.') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like provide_input or fail_step. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance.

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