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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=false; the description adds real value by specifying the additive scope (existing notes and summary are untouched) and that repeated calls append rather than replace. It does not state permission requirements or whether duplicate identical notes are allowed, so it stops short of full transparency.

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 sentences, zero padding, with the core action and its additive nature front-loaded before the usage constraint. 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 two-parameter mutation with an output schema present, the description covers the essential unknown (additive vs. overwriting) and the invocation condition, so return values need not be explained. Minor gaps remain around error behavior and duplicate handling.

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% – 'text' documents plain text with length bounds and 'meeting_id' documents its source (list_meetings or search_meetings). The description adds nothing about parameters beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 meeting') and immediately disambiguates the additive semantics from update_meeting by noting the note lands 'next to the notes the user wrote there' with existing notes and summary untouched. An agent can tell this apart from sibling mutation tools without opening a 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?

Provides an explicit usage gate: 'Call it only when the user asked for this change,' which functions as both a when-to-use and a when-not-to-use instruction. No alternative tool is named, but the exclusion condition is unambiguous.

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