add_rest

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It adds valuable behavioral context: that an accepted (kOK) response does not guarantee the rest actually landed, urging verification. It also mentions the mode transition (leaves note input), which is useful.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action and parameter values, followed by a crucial caveat. Every word earns its place; no filler or repetition.

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 tool with one optional parameter, the description covers the action, allowed values, the caret position, and the mode change, plus a verification warning. It lacks an explicit prerequisite (e.g., must be in note input mode) but that is implied by 'then leave note input'. Given the output schema exists and the tool is small, this is sufficiently complete.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for the single 'duration' parameter, but the description explicitly lists all accepted values (whole, half, quarter, eighth, sixteenth, 32nd, 64th). This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions and adds meaning beyond the bare property definition.

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 identifies the action (input a rest), the resource (rest), the location (at the caret), and the mode context (note input). It distinguishes itself from sibling tool add_notes by specifying 'rest' versus notes.

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 implies usage in note input mode and states that after inserting the rest, the tool leaves note input. It does not explicitly contrast with add_notes, but the purpose is clear enough that an agent would know when to use this over alternatives.

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