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

Annotations flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true; the description earns credit by making the destruction explicit and actionable — 'Replaces the previous notes for that target, so include what should be kept.' It also discloses where notes surface (get_workspace / get_view), which annotations cannot convey.

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-loads purpose, then usage examples, then the replacement warning — all three sentences carry distinct value. The parenthetical examples are longer than strictly necessary but aid correct invocation.

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 3-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, what content belongs in it, what gets destroyed, and where the result is visible. Nothing needed 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 schema already documents target_type enum, the workspace-omission default, and the replacement behavior. The description's mapping of notes to view/dataset/workspace largely restates the enum, adding little 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 ('saves durable notes') and explains the exact niche it fills: persistent memory across sessions. An agent can distinguish it from all siblings such as create_view or report_feedback without opening another schema.

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 concrete inclusion criteria with examples (data provenance, definitions like 'MRR excludes one-off invoices', user preferences) and warns that notes replace prior content so everything to be kept should be included. No alternatives or explicit when-not-to-use are named, so it falls short of a 5.

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