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

Goes well beyond annotations: specifies plan requirement (Indie), auth requirements (authorized account or API key with write scope), and idempotent semantics. The annotations declare idempotentHint=true, and the description reinforces it with the concrete 're-sending the same note is a no-op', adding operational detail the annotations cannot convey.

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-loads 'WRITE tool' and the core action in the first sentence, then layers idempotency and auth compactly. Every clause earns its place, though the parentheses around examples could be trimmed.

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?

Covers the mutation semantics, idempotency, plan/auth prerequisites, and note-clearing use cases; with schema handling parameter detail and no output schema needed, an agent has everything required to invoke correctly.

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 100%, so both parameters are fully documented in the schema, including the null/empty-string clearing behavior and the ID disambiguation note. The description adds only a general phrase about notes; the baseline 3 applies when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('sets or clears the note on a tracked keyword') with example use cases, and distinguishes scope ('caller's Sonar workspace'). An agent can tell it apart from sonar_star_keyword or sonar_track_keywords.

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?

Implies usage via examples (why tracked, hypothesis, reminder) and produces a 'WRITE tool' label, but does not state when-not-to-use or name an alternative sibling for note clearing vs. other keyword mutations.

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