add_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the load, and it does disclose meaningful behavior: notes surface in the viewer, are user-editable, and appear in get_pipeline, list_runs, and the HTML export. It doesn't cover permissions or whether the note is returned, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Two sentences, no filler; the core action comes first and the visibility/consumers detail follows as supporting context. Every clause contributes information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers purpose, use cases, and downstream visibility. What's missing is minor but real: no note on permissions or limits, and no mention of what happens when both step and run_id are omitted.

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% and every parameter (step, run_id, text, replace) is documented in-schema, so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description's 'to a step or a run' only echoes the schema's own 'give step OR run_id' guidance, adding no new syntax or format details.

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?

Uses a specific verb (add) plus resource (note) and states the two attachment targets (step or run), so the agent can distinguish it from siblings such as tag_run or log_run with no schema inspection.

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 examples 'why a run failed, what a step assumes, or a conclusion from a comparison' give concrete situations that call for this tool, which is stronger than generic context. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions, so it stays at 4 rather than 5.

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