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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: the Markdown body, the allowed link schemes, the 'refused, not cut' validation behavior on oversized text, and the required editor role on the project. This is strong disclosure for a write tool, though it doesn't touch the destructiveHint=true annotation (e.g., no explanation of side effects or lifecycle).

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then the two kind definitions before constraints. Every sentence carries distinct, necessary information with no filler.

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 no-output-schema create tool, the definition covers permissions, content format, validation failure mode, and the kind choice, which is nearly everything an agent needs. The main remaining gap is any indication of side effects tied to the destructiveHint annotation.

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?

With 75% schema coverage, the schema documents boardId and title, while the description contributes real meaning for kind (note vs discussion semantics) and content (Markdown, link scheme constraints, size limit). It goes beyond restating the schema, though it doesn't mention the title's 200-character bound.

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 (starts a note or discussion in a project) and defines the two kinds, which is the main ambiguity an agent faces. It never uses the word 'page' itself, so the resource name must be inferred from the tool name rather than the description, and no sibling (create_task, create_board) is explicitly contrasted.

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?

Offers clear in-tool routing by explaining what a note is versus a discussion and how their editing/commenting models differ, which directly guides the kind choice. It stops short of explicit when/when-not guidance against sibling tools such as update_page or add_page_comment.

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