Add File to Note

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

The description explains that the server reads and encodes the file automatically when file_path is provided. However, it does not detail whether the attachment appends or replaces existing attachments. Annotations already indicate destructiveHint true, so the bar is lowered; the description adds value but could be more explicit.

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 concise with two sentences and a prerequisite hint. It is front-loaded with the main action and immediately follows with usage guidance. No unnecessary words.

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?

The description covers the main usage patterns, prerequisites, and parameter interactions. It does not mention file size limits or supported file types, but these are not essential for a straightforward file-attachment tool. The information is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds significant value by explaining the preferred vs alternative usage of file_path and base64_content, the requirement of filename when using base64_content, and auto-inference from file_path. This clarifies the parameter relationships beyond the schema.

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 action (Attach/Add a file to an existing Bear note) and the resource (file to note). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like bear-add-tag or bear-add-text by specifying the operation on files.

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: prefer file_path for files on disk, use base64_content as alternative, and instructs to use bear-search-notes first to obtain the note ID. This tells the agent when and how to use the tool effectively.

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