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

The description discloses a key side effect: @mentions email the mentioned users, which goes beyond the raw annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). It also mentions visibility options. While it doesn't address auth requirements or reversibility, the annotations already indicate a write operation, and the description adds the email notification behavior, which is valuable.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the primary action first, then the optional features. It contains no filler or redundant phrasing, and every clause contributes to understanding the tool's behavior.

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 create tool with 100% schema coverage, the description covers the essential purpose and side effects. It doesn't mention required parameters (candidate_id, body) explicitly, but those are in the schema. There's no output schema to explain, and the behavior is simple. It lacks details like whether the note appears in a candidate timeline, but that's implicit from the tool's purpose. Overall, it's adequate for an agent to call it correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has a description (e.g., body allows HTML, candidate_id accepts id or alias, visibility defaults to all). The tool description summarizes these features but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. It does not explain interactions between parameters or provide context beyond what's already documented.

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 states a specific verb ('Create'), resource ('discussion note'), and target ('for a candidate'), and lists optional features (visibility, @mentions). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like hires_update_note and hires_delete_note by indicating this tool creates, not modifies or removes, a note.

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 implies usage (add a note to a candidate) but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like hires_update_note or hires_delete_note. It also doesn't mention any conditions or prerequisites, such as the candidate needing to exist or user permissions. The context is clear from the name, but the description itself offers no direct routing.

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