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

Annotations already declare this as a non-destructive, non-open-world write, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about what a note attaches to and how the point anchor is interpreted, but says nothing about return values (note ID?), duplicate handling, or whether a project must be open.

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 dense sentences with no filler; the anchoring modes come first and the coordinate convention follows. Slightly telegraphic phrasing ("or a clip") costs a bit of readability but nothing is wasted.

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 6-parameter tool with a nested object, no output schema, and sparse schema descriptions, the definition covers anchoring semantics but omits time units, response contents, and any permission or project-state requirements. Adequate to invoke, not fully sufficient to invoke confidently.

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 only 17%, so the description carries real weight here: it explains end as making the note a range, ties clipId to clip-level anchoring, and gives the coordinate convention for point (0–1 normalized, top-left origin), which the schema does not. However, it never specifies units for time/end (seconds vs. frames) and leaves text and clipId format undocumented.

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 uses a specific verb ("Pin") on a specific resource ("review note") and enumerates the three anchoring modes: a time, a range via end, or a clip. It clearly reads as a creation tool, distinguishing it from update_note/delete_note/resolve_note without naming them explicitly.

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 anchoring modes imply when to use the tool (annotating a moment, a span, or a whole clip), but there is no explicit routing guidance to siblings such as list_notes, update_note, or reopen_note, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions.

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