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 states the tool 'replaces' content, implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it creates a note if none exists, what happens to previous content, or any error conditions. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool, earning its place with zero waste.

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 complexity (a mutation with no annotations, 1 parameter at 0% schema coverage, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It fails to address key aspects like what 'current note' refers to, whether the operation is idempotent, or what the return value might be, leaving significant gaps for agent understanding.

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 0%, so the schema only indicates a required 'content' parameter of type string. The description adds minimal semantics by implying 'content' is the 'new string' that replaces the current note, but it doesn't elaborate on format, constraints, or examples. With one parameter, the baseline is 4, but the description provides only basic value beyond the schema.

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 action ('replaces') and the resource ('the current note'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'append_note' (which adds content) or 'clear_note' (which removes content), though the verb 'replaces' implies overwriting rather than appending.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'append_note' or 'clear_note'. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., whether a note must exist) or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the verb 'replaces' alone.

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