add_note

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

The description reveals a critical behavioral trait not present in annotations: Cronometer cannot delete notes via the API, they can only be rewritten, and removal requires the Cronometer app. This provides meaningful context beyond readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and it does not contradict the annotations.

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 well-organized: a one-line purpose, a single behavioral caveat, and a concise Args section. Every sentence earns its place 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?

For a simple two-parameter tool, the description covers purpose, a key behavioral limitation, and parameter formatting. A minor gap is that it does not clarify whether adding a note to a day with an existing note appends or overwrites it, but the output schema covers return-value expectations.

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 explain parameters. It covers both parameters and adds useful format and default details for date ('YYYY-MM-DD', defaults to today). However, 'text: The note text' is essentially a tautology that adds no real semantic value.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Add a note to a day in the Cronometer diary.' It unambiguously identifies the operation and distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_food_entry, add_fast, and edit_note.

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 usage is implied—use this to add a note to a diary day—but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose it over alternatives like edit_note, nor exclusions. The note about deletion limitations hints at consequences but does not direct tool selection.

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