temp-notes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the basic behavior of appending text with a new line and optional separator, but lacks details on permissions, error handling, or what happens if no note exists. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral disclosure.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality and optional feature. It is front-loaded with the main action and wastes no words, making it highly concise and effective.

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 (mutation with 2 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides basic operational context but lacks completeness. It covers what the tool does and parameters but misses details on prerequisites, side effects, and return values, which are important for a mutation tool.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'content' is the new text to append and 'include_separator' is an optional boolean for adding a separator line, adding meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema. However, it does not specify the format of the separator or any constraints on content, leaving minor gaps.

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 'appends' and the resource 'current note', specifying that it adds new text starting with a new line. It distinguishes from siblings like 'write_note' (which likely overwrites) and 'clear_note' (which clears content), making the purpose specific and differentiated.

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 by mentioning 'current note' and the optional separator, suggesting it's for incremental additions rather than full replacements. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'write_note' or 'read_note', leaving the guidance implicit rather than explicit.

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