Add Note Tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses key behavior: @Name mentions notify the colleague, secrets are forbidden, and an existing note can be marked outdated with replacement text. It does not cover permissions, failure behavior, or visibility scope beyond 'colleagues should know.'

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and each subsequent sentence adds a concrete constraint or workflow detail. It is slightly dense but not padded; every sentence serves a purpose.

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 5-parameter write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers content scope, safety constraints, notification behavior, and the obsolete-note workflow. It leaves repo/project/session precedence to the schema and does not describe permissions or return values, but those are minor relative to the core guidance provided.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: @Name inside text triggers a notification, and obsolete can be used alone or paired with replacement text. It reinforces that obsolete ids come from project_brief, which the schema also notes.

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 a specific verb and resource — saving a colleague-relevant note about a project — and defines the exact kinds of content it holds (access, convention, gotcha, location). This distinguishes it from task, comment, and document siblings without needing to name them.

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?

It gives a clear when-to-use rule: 'Only when the person asks or agrees,' and it implicitly excludes secrets/passwords/tokens. It does not explicitly name alternative tools like save_context or write_document, so sibling routing is left to inference.

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