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

With annotations only reporting readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, the description adds a meaningful behavioral requirement: echo back what Promise understood and require review when the platform asks. This is beyond the schema and annotations, though the platform-review trigger remains somewhat underspecified.

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?

Two concise sentences with the purpose front-loaded and a separate safety note; no filler or repeated schema information. Both sentences earn their place.

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?

The tool has seven parameters, no output schema, and no documentation of return behavior, and the description is too sparse to support correct invocation of the richer fields. The safety note is useful but does not compensate for missing parameter guidance and sibling differentiation.

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 0%, so the description needed to compensate, but it only implies that the transcript is the content to remember. It does not explain kind, dueAt, title, contactId, requestId, or personName, leaving the 7-parameter input substantially underspecified.

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?

The description clearly identifies the core action - letting a user tell Promise something to remember - which aligns with the capture_note name. It is not a tautology, but it does not mention the task/follow_up/remember variants in the schema or distinguish the tool from siblings like create_follow_up or search_memory.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use capture_note versus create_follow_up, draft_follow_up, or search_memory. The safety sentence is operational policy rather than usage context, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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