note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden: it discloses that this is append-only at the end of the file and that a date is added automatically, which are useful traits beyond the name. It omits whether the file/section is created if missing, whether the workspace library must exist, and what the call returns.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and destination, with the alternative last. Slight redundancy in restating the file-writing fallback, but nothing wasted.

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 simple two-parameter write tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the action and write semantics but leaves the required 'project' argument undefined and the file-creation behavior unstated.

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 coverage is 0% for two required parameters, so the description must compensate. It implies the note body ('keep it short and specific') but never explains the required 'project' parameter or how text and project interact.

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?

States a specific verb (append), resource (a dated note), and exact destination (library/NOTES.md), plus the purpose (future work). An agent can distinguish it from file-editing siblings because the description names the alternative for restructuring.

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?

Gives the use case explicitly (a lesson, a preference, a fix for future work) and routes the agent elsewhere when the intent is headings or rewording old notes. It stops short of saying when not to record a note at all, but the alternative is clear.

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