record_note

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden and does meaningful work: it discloses that unspecified projects default to team-wide, that repository names are auto-corrected to the owner project, and that unregistered names are silently discarded. It also tells the agent to verify project/project_hint in the response, which is important non-obvioius behavior.

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 compact and front-loaded: one sentence establishes purpose, and the second section adds only the essential project behavior. No redundant restating of the tool name or schema; every sentence adds value.

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?

For a note-recording tool, the description covers the key complexities: when to use it, how to set the project, and how to verify normalization via the response. It does not explain tag/author semantics, but those are optional and obvious from the schema, and the output schema exists to convey response structure.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does for the project parameter, adding validation rules, default behavior, and normalization semantics. The other four parameters (title, content, tags, author) are not described, though their names and schema defaults make them mostly self-explanatory. This is partial but not complete compensation.

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 uses a specific verb ('records') and resource ('general knowledge memo'), and explicitly excludes decisions and lessons learned, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like record_decision and record_learning. It also lists example contents, making the tool's scope concrete.

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 clearly states when to use the tool: for general knowledge memos that are not decisions or lessons learned. It also gives project-naming guidance tied to list_sources. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative tools to use for decisions or lessons, relying on sibling names to make that connection.

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