bear-notes-mcp

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

Annotations already indicate this is a destructive (destructiveHint: true), non-idempotent (idempotentHint: false), open-world (openWorldHint: true) write operation (readOnlyHint: false). The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it explains the server's automatic file reading/encoding behavior for file_path, mentions that filename is auto-inferred from file_path when omitted, and notes the requirement to use bear-search-notes for note IDs. No contradictions with annotations exist.

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 efficiently structured in three sentences: the core purpose, parameter preferences, and prerequisite usage. Every sentence adds value—none are redundant or verbose. It's front-loaded with the main action and immediately follows with practical guidance, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, destructive operation) and lack of output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, and key behavioral details. However, it doesn't describe the return value or error conditions, which would be helpful since there's no output schema. Still, it provides sufficient context for effective use alongside annotations.

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%, meaning all parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds some semantic context by stating preferences (file_path preferred over base64_content) and clarifying the relationship between filename and file_path/base64_content. However, it doesn't provide significant additional meaning beyond what the schema already covers, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('Attach a file to an existing Bear note'), identifies the resource ('Bear note'), and distinguishes it from siblings like bear-add-text (adds text) or bear-create-note (creates new notes). It explicitly mentions the two input methods (file_path vs base64_content), making the purpose 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 guidance on when to use this tool: 'Use bear-search-notes first to get the note ID.' It also specifies preferences between parameters ('Preferred: provide file_path... Alternative: provide base64_content...') and clarifies when to use alternatives like bear-search-notes. This directly addresses when and how to invoke the tool versus other options.

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