shelf_add_asset_note

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

Annotations already declare a non-readonly, non-destructive, open-world write, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that the note lands in the asset's activity log (an append/audit hint), but omits auth/permission needs, whether notes are editable, and what is returned.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the action and target are stated first. It is efficient, though extremely terse for a mutating tool.

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 3-param append operation with no output schema, the description is minimally viable, but two required parameters are undocumented and the note's visibility/lifecycle is unexplained. It does enough to call the tool correctly but little more.

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 only 33% – orgId is documented but the two required parameters, assetId and content, have no descriptions. The description does not compensate, adding no detail about note content limits (beyond minLength 1) or assetId format.

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 + resource: 'Add a note to an asset's activity log.' An agent can immediately tell this appends a note versus e.g. updating the asset itself. There is no sibling note tool to disambiguate against, so no explicit differentiation is needed.

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 when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternative guidance. It reads as an obvious operation but the description never states when a note is appropriate versus, say, shelf_update_asset or shelf_assign_custody, nor whether the note is user-visible.

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