Add Note

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It communicates that this is a mutating, add-only action and warns about target accuracy through the project parameter instruction. But it does not disclose edge-case behavior such as what happens when both project and task_id are supplied, whether notes overwrite, or what the response is.

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?

Three sentences with no filler: the primary action and target are front-loaded, followed by clear proactive usage guidance and a concrete parameter instruction. Every sentence earns its place.

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 moderately simple append-note tool, the description provides enough contextual framing to invoke it correctly: what to add, when to use it, and how to target the right project. The absence of an output schema and the one-required-parameter shape reduce the burden on the description. Minor ambiguity around project vs. task precedence keeps it from a 5.

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 the schema already fully documents all five parameters. The description reinforces the project parameter's importance but adds little semantic value beyond what the schema property descriptions already convey. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Add a note') and the target resource ('to a project or task'). It distinguishes itself from retrieval tools by explicitly naming note-creation content types like architecture, bugs, ideas, and research findings. Though log_decision is a sibling, the note-taking purpose is clear and well-scoped.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: proactively when the user shares important context worth remembering. It also gives a practical requirement: always specify the project parameter when known. It does not, however, state when not to use it or point to alternatives like search_notes or log_decision, so it misses the 'when-not/alternatives' bar for a 5.

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