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

Annotations already declare it is a non-destructive write with no idempotency and no open-world effects. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the note appears under the author's name, a directed note sits on the recipient's home and remains open until someone closes it, and the response surfaces records sharing the note's words.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, but the remainder is dense and awkwardly phrased (e.g. 'come from the person's part (part: it then asks whoever handed it out)'), making it harder to parse than necessary. Every sentence carries information, but the packaging could be tighter.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description covers targets, quoting, directed notes, and part provenance. The 'day' and 'project' parameters are left to the schema, but overall the definition is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 86%, so a baseline of 3 applies, but the description adds real meaning: it explains that 'passage' quotes text, that 'to' asks exactly one person, and that 'part' causes the note to ask whoever handed the part out. This clarifies the interaction between parameters beyond what the schema states.

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 opens with a concrete verb and resource: 'Leaves a comment or a question on a document, a section or a task, as a note under this person's name.' An agent immediately knows this creates a note attached to a target. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like ask_for or close_note, which keeps it from a 5.

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 through conditional behavior: a note that asks someone lands on their home and stays open until closed, and passages/parts apply only to documents and sections. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose add_note over ask_for, or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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