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

Annotations only declare it a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world write; the description goes well beyond that by disclosing visibility (everyone with role access), attribution to the signed-in user, the append-only immutability, and the auth requirement (OAuth or scoped token with collaboration access). That is exactly the context an agent needs before mutating shared state.

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 the core action, then layers constraints and auth. Dense and mostly waste-free, though the sentence about re-calling could be folded more tightly.

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?

Covers visibility, immutability, permissions and auth for a simple 3-param write with no output schema. The only real gap is not pointing to list_role_notes for reading existing notes or clarifying whether edit/delete exist elsewhere.

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 only 33% (only workspaceId is documented), so the description should carry more. It clarifies content semantics (a 1–5000 character note, author auto-attributed so no author param is needed), but says nothing about roleId or the 'personal' workspace value that the schema does cover.

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 ('Add a note ... to a role') plus the effect (visible to everyone with access, attributed to the signed-in user). This is clearly distinguishable from sibling list_role_notes, which reads notes rather than creating them.

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 calling guidance: 'call it again to add another, as notes cannot be edited or removed here', and states who may use it ('Viewers may add notes'). It does not name an alternative for editing or deleting notes, but the append-only framing makes the boundary implicit.

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