add-magazine-note

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It implies a write/mutation operation ('add'), but doesn't disclose permissions needed, side effects (e.g., whether the note becomes publicly visible), error conditions, or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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?

Extremely concise single sentence in Japanese, front-loaded with the core action. No wasted words or redundant information. Perfectly sized for the simple operation described.

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?

Incomplete for a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema. The description doesn't explain what happens after adding (success response, error cases), nor does it clarify the relationship between magazine and note (e.g., ordering, visibility). Given the complexity of adding content to a collection, more context is needed.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both parameters clearly documented in the schema (magazineId and noteId as string IDs). The description adds no additional parameter context beyond implying these IDs reference existing resources. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'マガジンに記事を追加する' (Add an article to a magazine) clearly states the action (add/append) and target resource (magazine). It distinguishes from siblings like 'remove-magazine-note' (opposite action) and 'get-magazine' (read-only). However, it doesn't specify what type of 'note' is being added (e.g., existing note vs. new content), which prevents a perfect score.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing existing magazine and note IDs), exclusions, or compare with similar tools like 'post-draft-note' (which might create notes). The agent must infer usage from the name and parameters alone.

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