bear-notes-mcp

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds valuable context: 'Removes the tag but preserves the notes themselves.' This clarifies the scope of destruction (tag removal only, not note deletion) and provides reassurance about data preservation beyond what annotations convey.

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 perfectly front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by important behavioral clarification, then usage guidance. All three sentences earn their place with zero wasted 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?

For a destructive operation with good annotations and a simple single parameter, the description provides excellent context about what gets destroyed (tags) and what doesn't (notes), plus prerequisite guidance. The only minor gap is lack of information about return values or error conditions, but this is reasonable given the tool's simplicity.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already fully documents the single parameter. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation without providing extra semantic value.

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 ('Delete a tag from all notes') and resource ('your Bear library'), distinguishing it from siblings like bear-rename-tag or bear-add-tag. It explicitly mentions that notes are preserved, which helps differentiate from destructive note operations.

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: 'Use bear-list-tags first to see existing tags.' This tells the agent when to use this tool (after verifying tags exist) and references a specific alternative tool for prerequisite information.

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