Add a note to a document

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating, non-idempotent operation, and the description does not contradict them or add significant behavioral details beyond 'attach.' It explains the purpose of the note but does not disclose, for example, whether repeated calls create multiple notes or how the note relates to the document record.

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?

Two sentences front-load the action and resource, then immediately provide the intended use case with concrete examples. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 two-parameter create operation with clear annotations and simple schema constraints, the description covers the essential context: what the tool does, when to use it, and what kind of content belongs in the note. No output schema is needed because the effect is straightforward.

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 0%, but the description compensates by establishing that 'note' is free-text and the target is a 'document,' which makes the role of the 'id' parameter clear. No ambiguity remains about what the two parameters mean, even though the description does not restate schema constraints.

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 names a specific verb ('Attach') and resource ('document'), and clearly defines the output as a free-text note. It also distinguishes this tool from siblings like delete_document_note and list_document_notes by emphasizing its purpose of storing context alongside the document.

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 gives clear usage context: 'record context that belongs with the document rather than in the conversation' with concrete examples. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the distinction between document-bound notes and conversational context is clear enough for selection among siblings.

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