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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the description need not restate safety. It adds meaningful behavioral context that both partners see the item in the dashboard, but says nothing about permissions, validation, or what happens to duplicate entries.

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 compact sentences with no waste. The core action and content examples come first, and the shared-visibility consequence is appended as useful context.

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 simple three-parameter creation tool with no output schema and clear annotations, the description covers what the tool does, what content it accepts, and who sees the result. The only real omission is the distinction between "title" and "body" and any handling of the "pinned" flag.

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 33%, with just "pinned" documented, so the description must compensate. It adds examples of what belongs in "body" (a thought, measurement, song, vendor question), but says nothing about the optional "title" or about body length/format constraints, leaving the gap partly unfilled.

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 and resource ("Adds a note to the couple's shared ideas") and enumerates the kinds of content the note can hold. It clearly distinguishes creation from siblings like update-idea and delete-idea by implication, though it never names those alternatives.

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?

Usage is implied: capture a thought, measurement, song, or vendor question into the shared ideas list. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no routing to update-idea for later edits or list-ideas for retrieval.

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