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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses that notes persist into future sessions, are flagged as AI-suggested, are reviewable/deletable from the dashboard, and prescribes a user confirmation message. It omits any auth/permission or rate-limit behavior, which keeps it short of a 5.

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-loaded with purpose and call condition, followed by filtering rules and the post-save message. Dense but every sentence carries instructional weight; the confirmation wording could arguably be trimmed but is operationally useful.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description covers the lifecycle an agent needs: when to save, what gets stored, how it's flagged, and how to report back to the user. Return-value detail is unnecessary here, leaving only minor gaps around error/permission behavior.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description's examples map onto the enum values (e.g. 'one B2B customer is a reseller' → business_context, 'we exclude wholesale orders' → excluded_segment), teaching the practical use of categories beyond the schema's terse definitions. It adds no guidance on severity or _offset, so not a 5.

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 ('Save a new store-context note') and bounds the scope to 'something the USER told you that future sessions should know', which distinguishes it from siblings like save_insight and save_focus. An agent can tell immediately what this tool persists and why.

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?

Explicit invocation condition ('Only call this when the user reveals business context the data alone wouldn't show') plus explicit exclusions ('Do NOT save speculation, transient session state, or things already obvious from the data. Skip if uncertain'). Four concrete examples clarify the trigger and effectively route against the read/other-save siblings.

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