bear-notes-mcp

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

The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it explains that this tool inserts text without replacing existing content (clarifying the non-destructive nature hinted by destructiveHint: false), mentions the need to use bear-search-notes first (implying a prerequisite step), and provides usage examples for position options. However, it doesn't detail potential side effects like rate limits or auth needs, though annotations cover basic hints like readOnlyHint: false. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 concise usage guidelines and differentiation from siblings. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and it's appropriately sized for a tool with multiple parameters and sibling distinctions.

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 (4 parameters, annotations provide hints, no output schema), the description is largely complete: it covers purpose, usage, and parameter context. However, it doesn't detail return values or error cases, which could be useful since there's no output schema. It compensates well with annotations and schema coverage but has minor gaps.

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?

The description adds some meaning beyond the input schema, such as explaining that 'header' can target 'any heading level, including the note title (H1)' and giving context for 'position' values (e.g., 'end' for logs, 'beginning' for summaries). However, with schema description coverage at 100%, the schema already documents parameters well, so the description's additions are helpful but not essential, meeting the baseline of 3.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Insert text at the beginning or end of a Bear note, or within a specific section identified by its header') and distinguishes it from sibling tools by explicitly mentioning bear-search-notes for note ID and bear-replace-text as an alternative for overwriting content. It precisely defines the action and target resource.

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 versus alternatives: it instructs to use bear-search-notes first to get the note ID, specifies 'To insert without replacing existing text use this tool; to overwrite the direct content under a header use bear-replace-text,' and mentions position options for different contexts (e.g., 'end' for logs, 'beginning' for summaries). This clearly differentiates it from siblings and outlines prerequisites.

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