skill_store_note

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

Without annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It transparently states that the tool only creates new note files, never edits existing files, and stores notes under a '_notes' directory. It also reveals the return structure (path, created, message). While it doesn't address error conditions or idempotency, the core non-destructive behavior is well communicated.

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 well-structured with clear sections (function_purpose, Description, Constraints, Args, Returns) and uses concise bullet points. A few phrases are slightly redundant ('Additions only' and 'never edits existing files'), but overall every sentence serves a purpose and the text is not excessively long.

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-parameter tool with no annotations, the description is exceptionally complete. It covers purpose, usage scope, constraints, all parameters, and the return value. The provided output schema description further enhances completeness, so the agent has all necessary information to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, and it does thoroughly. It explains each argument: name must be hyphen-case and match the skill directory, title is a short descriptive label, and content supports Markdown. This goes far beyond the plain string types in the schema, providing critical usage guidance.

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 specific action ('Append a new note to a skill') and the resource ('a skill'). It also distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing additive note-taking rather than editing or asset management, making the tool's unique role unambiguous.

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 when-to-use scenarios ('Use this to record observations, corrections, suggested improvements, and example scripts') and a clear when-not-to-use constraint ('never edits existing files'). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for editing or asset management, so it stops short of a 5.

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