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

Adds real context beyond annotations: the note is visible in-app with the post, hidden from the client reviewer, and never published — exactly the disclosure an agent needs before writing. Annotations only cover the safety profile (non-destructive write), so this visibility semantics is genuinely additive. It does not mention idempotency handling despite idempotentHint=false plus an idempotency_key parameter, which is a minor gap.

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 short clauses: what it does, its visibility guarantees, and when to use it. Front-loaded and every sentence carries distinct information.

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 4-param, no-output-schema write tool, the description covers purpose, visibility, persistence and the read-back path (get_approval). It omits return shape and whether the note can later be edited or removed — no sibling exists for that, so a hint would have helped.

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 50%: workspace_id and idempotency_key are documented in-schema, while post_id and text are not. The description adds the 5,000-character bound (already in maxLength) and implicitly ties the note to a post, but does not explain text vs. post_id semantics or why an idempotency key matters given idempotentHint=false. Baseline 3 fits.

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?

Specific verb+resource: adds a team note on a post, with the decisive qualifier that it is internal — never shown to the client reviewer and never published. That distinguishes it from comments, reviews and approval flows among the siblings.

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?

"Use it to explain a choice or leave your human a question" gives a concrete when-to-use, and the reference to get_approval tells the agent where notes are read back. It stops short of explicit exclusions against sibling tools such as reply_to_comment or request_approval.

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