Add note

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

With no annotations the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the call returns the note id (compensating for the missing output schema), but says nothing about permissions, persistence, failure behavior, or the 10-tag cap enforced by the schema.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler: the action, the return value, and the tag tip. Every sentence earns its place.

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 additive create tool with a fully documented schema, the description covers the essentials and even compensates for the absent output schema by naming the returned id. It stops short of stating any permissions or error behavior, which is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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%, so title and content are already documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The tag sentence adds a small amount of intent ('group related notes') but does not explain format, syntax, or interaction with other fields.

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 and resource ('Save a new note') plus the return value, so the agent immediately knows this is a creation tool. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like list_notes or search_notes, though the verb makes the distinction obvious.

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?

'Use tags to group related notes' is advice about a parameter, not about when to invoke this tool versus its siblings. There is no stated precondition, no exclusion, and no alternative named, so an agent gets no routing guidance beyond the obvious verb.

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