manage_attributes

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 and does so comprehensively. It reveals critical behavioral traits: write-only access, update limitations (only label value/position and relation position can be updated), the immutable nature of isInheritable property, requirements for relation values (must point to existing notes), and performance considerations for batch operations. This goes well beyond what the input schema provides about constraints.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose and key limitation (write-only access). Each sentence adds value: distinguishing from read operations, explaining attribute types, detailing update limitations, and mentioning performance benefits. While comprehensive, it remains focused without unnecessary repetition or fluff.

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 complex mutation tool with 3 parameters, 100% schema coverage, but no annotations or output schema, the description provides substantial context about behavioral constraints, usage patterns, and limitations. It covers the tool's scope, update restrictions, relation requirements, and performance considerations. The main gap is the lack of information about return values or error conditions, but given the comprehensive behavioral disclosure, this is a minor omission.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context about parameter usage: it explains the purpose of different attribute types (labels for #tags, relations for ~connections), provides concrete examples of name values ('status', 'priority', 'template', 'author'), and clarifies value requirements for relations. However, it doesn't add significant semantic information beyond what's already well-documented in the schema descriptions.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('manage', 'create', 'update', 'delete') and resources ('note attributes'), and distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'read_attributes' by explicitly stating this is for write operations only. The description provides concrete examples of what can be managed (labels, template relations) and how they're used.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: it states 'use read_attributes to view existing attributes' and mentions 'efficient batch creation for better performance' as a performance consideration. It also specifies that this tool 'only provides write access,' clearly delineating its scope from read operations.

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