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

Annotations indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) but not destructiveness. The description adds behavioral detail: it requires mod authority and writes a standard ModLog row. This informs the agent about authorization needs and system impact beyond what annotations provide.

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 description is exceptionally concise: two short sentences that front-load the primary purpose and then add behavioral requirements. Every word contributes meaning, with zero redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the core behavior (adding a mod-private note, logging). It could optionally mention retrieval via list_member_notes, but the current content is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's role.

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?

All three parameters have descriptions in the input schema covering their meaning (e.g., body: 'Note text (mod-private; the member never sees it)'). The tool description does not add new parameter insights beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action (add a note), the target (colony member's running log), and a key attribute (mod-private). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like colony_delete_member_note and colony_list_member_notes, fulfilling the specific verb+resource requirement.

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 mentions the requirement for mod authority, providing some context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or offer alternatives, leaving the agent without comparative guidance against other mod actions like issuing strikes or banning.

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