Save note

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

Annotations already declare write/non-destructive/non-idempotent/local-only, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: empty or invalid notes are refused, the title may be derived from the text, and the call returns ID, slug and metadata. It does not mention that repeat calls create duplicates or where the note becomes searchable, which is the remaining gap.

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?

Four short sentences ordered by importance: what it does, when to use it vs. alternatives, what it returns, and edge-case behavior. Every sentence carries distinct information with no restatement of the title.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully states the return payload (item ID, slug, metadata), and the refusal rule covers the main failure mode for a 3-parameter write. It stops short of pointing at the retrieval path (e.g. search_uoinks) or noting duplicate-creation behavior, which would fully close the loop for an agent.

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 text, title and author are all documented in structured form; baseline is 3. The description only lightly reinforces one parameter ('title can be derived from the text'), essentially repeating the schema's 'handler's derived/default title', so it adds little beyond structured data.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Save user-provided text as a local searchable note') plus the attributes captured (title, attribution). It distinguishes itself from the ingestion siblings by naming uoink_page and uoink_image explicitly, so an agent knows this is the no-fetch path.

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?

Gives the positive condition ('pasted ideas or prose without fetching a source') and two named alternatives with the condition that selects each (uoink_page for a web article, uoink_image for pixels). No inference required from the agent.

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