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

Richly discloses behavior beyond annotations: private by default, team-plan conditional visibility, mention notification via Quibbly and email, solo-plan/team-notes-off fallback to private, and always-private group conversation notes. These are exactly the side effects and defaults an agent needs to call it safely.

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 the core action and privacy default, then layers in plan-specific behavior. It is dense but mostly earns its space; could be slightly tighter with structured sentences.

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 a 6-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers privacy, sharing, plan gating, mention notifications, and fallback behavior. It omits uncommon edge cases such as missing contact_id or group conversation validation, but is sufficiently complete 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 50%, so the description compensates by explaining visibility and mentions semantics, including the dependency that mentions need visibility team and the fallback when team notes are off. It does not add detail for name, contact_id, or conversation_urn, leaving those to the schema.

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 ('A note on a person (or a group conversation)') and clarifies the scope of where notes attach. An agent can distinguish it from update_note and delete_note without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly says sharing is only for when the user asks for it, and that mentions require visibility team. It also explains plan-dependent fallbacks, but does not name sibling alternatives such as update_note for edits or delete_note for removal.

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