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

Annotations already flag destructive=true and idempotent=false; the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the request_key is single-use and a changed intent under the same key fails, and that over MCP it executes immediately without a confirmation_token. It stops short of saying what the destructive effect is or what happens on a retry after failure.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action and its precondition, then the idempotency rule, then the MCP calling convention. No filler; only 'scoped' is left undefined.

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 destructive mutation tool with no output schema, it covers the confirmation/idempotency workflow and the MCP invocation path adequately. Minor gap: no statement of the side effects implied by destructiveHint=true or post-failure retry behavior.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds semantics the schema lacks: request_key's one-application-only constraint and the MCP-specific rule to omit confirmation_token, which materially changes how the caller uses those two parameters.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Create a scoped note or reminder') and conditions it on prior confirmation of lead, body, and due date. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling create_note, despite claiming to create 'a note or reminder', leaving overlap unresolved.

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?

Gives workflow guidance (confirm exact lead/body/due date first; call once without confirmation_token over MCP), which implies when the tool fits. But it never states when to use this versus create_note, list_reminders, or get_scheduled_action, so alternative selection is left to inference.

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