update_notes

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

With no annotations, the description fully explains behavior: a shallow merge at the top level, key replacement or creation, and leaving other keys unchanged. This provides complete transparency for a write operation.

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 sentences, each purposeful: first states action, second-third give usage guidance, fourth explains behavior. No wasted words; front-loaded with the main 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 simple tool with one parameter, the description covers purpose, usage, merge behavior, and why to use it over alternatives. Output schema exists, so return value explanation is not needed. Contextual completeness is excellent.

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% and already documents the 'updates' parameter well. The description adds value by providing an explicit example and clarifying the shallow merge semantics, justifying a score above baseline 3.

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 states the tool merges key-value pairs into _notes in pipeline-state.json, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tool editFiles by asserting it is the ONLY correct way to write _notes fields.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use (for writing _notes fields) and when not to (do not use editFiles for _notes). Explains the rationale: maintaining a single authoritative writer and preventing concurrent-write conflicts.

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