add_note

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

The description reveals that notes are not acted on immediately but are read by the daemon at scene boundaries, a meaningful behavioral detail beyond the annotations. It adds useful context about the mechanism and purpose without contradicting the readOnly/idempotent/destructive hints.

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 only two sentences long and front-loads the core action and mechanism first, followed by practical use cases. Every sentence adds value, and no filler or repetition exists.

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 low-complexity tool with two parameters, full schema coverage, and annotations already covering safety traits, the description provides all necessary context: what the tool does, how it behaves, and why it matters. No output schema is present, so the lack of return-value details is not a gap here.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description reinforces the category meanings in prose but does not add new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides, keeping this at the baseline for high coverage.

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 states a specific action ('Add a note') and a specific resource ('that the daemon reads at each scene boundary'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It also frames notes as the primary feedback mechanism, which positions this tool distinctly against siblings like add_canon.

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 gives clear practical contexts for use: steer the story, protect elements, flag concerns, or record observations. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the usage guidance is strong enough to guide an agent on when this tool is appropriate.

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