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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that processing happens on the user's Mac (Caddie must be running) and that the call is asynchronous — an id is returned before the transcript and notes exist. It omits failure modes (no captions available), duplicate-note behavior, and permission requirements.

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?

The purpose is front-loaded and the return contract is stated in a second sentence with no filler. The first sentence is dense but every clause (sources, Mac locality, Caddie equivalence, outputs produced) carries information.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the return semantics (note id, or 'being made') and the async caveat, which is what an agent most needs. It stops short of covering what happens when transcription fails or when the workspace isn't open in Caddie.

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% and the schema already documents url formats, workspace defaults and collection defaults in detail. The description adds only the Mac/Caddie locality constraint, which the schema's workspace field already states, so it adds little beyond the structured fields.

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 and resource ('Make a video note') and names the exact accepted sources (YouTube video, X post with video). The 'as pasting the link in Caddie does' analogy pins the behavior to a known user workflow, clearly separating it from the generic create_note sibling.

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 makes clear this is for video links and that it runs on the user's Mac, which is the operative precondition. It does not explicitly exclude non-video links or point at create_note/get_transcript as alternatives, so routing is implied rather than spelled out.

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