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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description earns credit by disclosing the actual destructive path (clearing text deletes the note) plus the surprising return behavior (an empty note is still returned for that date). This is real context beyond the annotation flags, though it does not cover permission requirements or rate limits.

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-loaded with the core action, then one compact sentence per parameter, with the destructive edge case saved for last. A couple of phrases duplicate the schema descriptions, so it is efficient but not flawless.

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 mutation tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description covers everything an agent needs: required date format, size limit, append semantics, and the destructive empty-text path. Return-value explanation is correctly omitted since the output schema exists.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters, and the description mostly restates them verbatim (date format, 1000-char limit, emoji, append). The only genuinely additive semantics is the deletion side effect of an empty text value, which supports the baseline 3 rather than more.

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+resource ('Create or replace a daily note') and scopes it to 'the authenticated user', which is enough to separate it from read-only siblings like get_notes. It never names an alternative tool explicitly, so it stops short of the top band.

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?

The description explains the replace-vs-append mode and the delete-by-clearing case, which implies usage, but it never says when to prefer this over get_notes or another note tool. No explicit when/when-not guidance or prerequisites are given.

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