bear-notes-mcp

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-destructive, idempotent, open-world mutation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true). The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies that tags are added at the beginning of the note and references bear-list-tags for tag discovery. This clarifies placement and prerequisites, though it doesn't detail error handling or rate limits.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by placement details and a usage tip. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential context without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a simple mutation tool with two parameters.

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 moderate complexity (mutation with idempotent behavior) and rich annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description is mostly complete. It adds placement behavior and tag discovery guidance. However, without an output schema, it doesn't describe return values (e.g., success confirmation or error details), leaving a minor gap in completeness.

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%, with clear documentation for both parameters (id and tags). The description does not add significant semantic details beyond the schema, such as format examples for id or tag naming conventions. It references bear-list-tags for available tags, which indirectly relates to the tags parameter but doesn't enhance schema-provided information. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 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 ('Add one or more tags') and target resource ('to an existing Bear note'), distinguishing it from siblings like bear-delete-tag (removes tags) and bear-create-note (creates new notes). It also specifies the placement behavior ('Tags are added at the beginning of the note'), which further differentiates it from tools that might append tags elsewhere.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: for adding tags to existing notes, with a prerequisite to use bear-list-tags to see available tags. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., vs. bear-create-note for new notes with tags) or name alternatives like bear-delete-tag for removal, leaving some ambiguity in sibling differentiation.

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