create_note

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

Annotations only include openWorldHint, which provides no behavioral safety info. The description fills this gap by disclosing that the operation creates remote discussion content, requires note permission, and returns the created note or errors. This is more than typical and covers key behavioral aspects though not exhaustive details like rate limits or reversibility.

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, with the core purpose in the first and usage guidance in the second. Nothing extraneous; front-loaded with the key information. Highly efficient and clear.

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 moderate-complexity tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description covers purpose, usage distinction, permission requirement, and return behavior. It doesn't mention potential side effects or edge cases, but it's sufficiently complete for an agent to use it correctly.

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 all parameters are already well-described. The description doesn't add significant semantics beyond the schema, but it does hint at the permission requirement and return behavior, which is a minor addition. Baseline of 3 is appropriate when schema carries the load.

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?

Description clearly states the action ('Create a new note (comment)') and specifies the target resources (issue or merge request). It also distinguishes from siblings by naming alternatives for threaded replies, making its scope unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool (top-level comment) and when not to (threaded replies), naming the two sibling tools that should be used instead. This leaves no ambiguity about selection.

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