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

Annotations declare openWorldHint=true and non-readonly, but the description adds crucial context the annotations cannot: the note reaches a person outside the user's workspace, so no private data should be included. It also clarifies timing relative to user interaction and that filing does not excuse completing the task.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then conditions, then exclusions, then timing. Slightly repetitive ('goes to Quillm's maintainer' restates the opening sentence), but the density is high and every clause carries operative guidance.

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 write-outward tool with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, privacy constraint, trigger conditions, exclusions, cadence and post-call behavior. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 the enum values are fully documented, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description's when-to-call examples loosely map to the 'kind' enum (workaround, missing capability) but add no syntax or format guidance beyond the schema.

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 and resource ('Files a note for Quillm's maintainer that Quillm itself fell short') and immediately constrains the scope to Quillm's own limitations, distinguishing it from sibling write_notes which presumably targets user content.

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 an explicit when-to-call list (missing capability, workaround, confusing error/guide, missing library) and an explicit when-not-to-call list (user data problems, own coding mistakes caught by render check, praise). Also specifies cadence (one call per distinct problem, filed as soon as recognised) and the requirement to still finish the task.

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