splithub_notes

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden. It discloses that add defaults day to today in the project time zone and that omitting experiment/property makes the note project-wide — useful behavioral context. However, it never states that delete is irreversible, whether add/edit/delete require confirmation, or what a successful mutation returns.

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?

Definition is front-loaded, then actions are presented in a compact per-action order with zero filler sentences. It is dense to the point of being terse, but every clause carries information.

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 10-parameter, multi-mode tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers action selection and parameter semantics adequately but omits the return shape (what a list yields, what a mutation returns) and any failure/permission behavior. The agent knows how to call it but not entirely what to expect back.

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 only 30%, so the description compensates well: it maps every parameter to an action (id+text/kind/day for edit, id for delete, experiment/property/kind/days/from/to for list) and adds defaults (day = today in project time zone, kind enum values). The date-range and project-wide semantics go beyond the bare schema.

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 opens with a concrete definition of the resource (day-level notes shown on experiment timelines and analytics charts) and then enumerates the four actions (list/add/edit/delete) with their individual behavior. It is specific about verb+resource, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling tool it differs from.

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 states the default action (list), explains how to narrow with experiment/property/kind/days/from/to, and gives an explicit trigger for the write path: 'Add one when you ship something that may move the numbers.' It stops short of naming alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions.

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