bear-notes-mcp

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, which the description aligns with by implying a mutation ('Rename a tag'). The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by specifying the scope ('across all notes'), which clarifies the extent of the destructive operation. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects like error handling or confirmation prompts.

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 usage context and a prerequisite step. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse for an agent.

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 destructive nature (annotations cover this), 2 parameters with full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It provides purpose, usage guidelines, and scope. A minor gap is the lack of information on return values or error cases, but this is acceptable without an output schema.

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%, so the input schema fully documents the parameters. The description doesn't add any semantic details beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain format rules or constraints for the new_name parameter). This meets the baseline for 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 ('Rename a tag across all notes') and resource ('your Bear library'), distinguishing it from siblings like bear-delete-tag or bear-add-tag. It goes beyond the title by specifying the scope ('across all notes'), which is crucial for understanding the tool's impact.

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 explicitly provides when to use this tool ('reorganizing tag taxonomy, fixing typos, or restructuring tag hierarchies') and includes a clear alternative directive ('Use bear-list-tags first to see existing tags'), which helps the agent select the correct tool and sequence operations effectively.

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