open-note-editor

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool opens an editing page, implying a UI interaction or navigation, but doesn't clarify if this is a read-only preview, requires authentication, modifies data, or has side effects. For a tool with potential mutation implications, this is insufficient.

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 a single, efficient sentence in Japanese ('記事の編集ページを開く') that directly states the tool's function. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no unnecessary words or redundancy. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the 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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely involves UI navigation or editing. It doesn't explain what 'opening' entails (e.g., redirect, new window, API response), potential errors, or behavioral outcomes. For a tool with one parameter but unclear behavior, 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'noteId' clearly documented as a string with an example. The description doesn't add any parameter details beyond the schema, such as format constraints or usage context. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 '記事の編集ページを開く' clearly states the action (open) and target (note editing page) in Japanese, making the purpose understandable. It specifies opening an editor rather than just viewing or creating, which distinguishes it from siblings like 'get-note' or 'post-draft-note'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar tools like 'add-magazine-note' in terms of scope or context.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing note ID), exclusions (e.g., not for creating new notes), or compare to siblings like 'get-note' for viewing or 'post-draft-note' for creating. Usage is implied by the action but lacks explicit context.

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