bear-notes-mcp

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

Annotations cover read/write and safety aspects (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: false, openWorldHint: true), but the description adds valuable context: it specifies that the note becomes 'immediately available in Bear app' and that the title parameter enables 'immediate follow-up operations' via the returned ID. This clarifies real-time behavior and workflow integration beyond the annotations.

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, followed by key behavioral details (returns ID, immediate availability). Both sentences earn their place by adding value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 (creation with optional parameters), rich annotations, and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, behavior, and workflow implications, but could improve by explicitly mentioning the lack of required parameters or potential error conditions (e.g., duplicate titles).

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%, providing clear documentation for all three parameters (title, text, tags). The description mentions these parameters as optional but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema, such as formatting nuances or interdependencies. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('create') and resource ('new note in your Bear library'), specifying the optional fields (title, content, tags) and distinguishing it from siblings like 'bear-add-text' or 'bear-grab-url' by focusing on initial note creation rather than modification or URL handling.

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 implies usage for creating new notes with optional metadata, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'bear-add-text' (for appending to existing notes) or 'bear-grab-url' (for creating notes from URLs). It provides context for immediate follow-up operations but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons.

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