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

Annotations already declare the write profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the safety bar is lower. The description contributes one genuinely useful behavioral fact — the note is readable by Marsell in the business context, i.e. it has an audience beyond the caller — but says nothing about whether an existing note with the same title is overwritten, how notes are edited or removed, or what a successful call returns.

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?

Two short sentences with the action front-loaded and no padding. The 'for Marsell to read with the business' clause is awkwardly worded rather than wasteful, so it is efficient but not fully polished.

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 simple two-required-string write tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essentials. It is still missing what happens to existing notes, where the note surfaces, and whether there are length or content limits, which matter for an agent deciding how to phrase a submission.

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 both 'title' and 'markdown' (including the non-empty constraints) are already documented in structured form. The description adds no format, length, or naming conventions beyond what the schema states, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

It names a verb and resource ('Adds a Markdown note') and gives content examples ('what the owner told you, a positioning doc'), but the phrase 'for Marsell to read with the business' is opaque and doesn't tell an agent what this note actually is in the product model. The comparison 'the same as add_guide with markdown' equates it to a sibling rather than distinguishing it from journal_note or business_context_change, so selection remains fuzzy.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. 'The same as add_guide with markdown' hints at an alternative but gives no condition that would make an agent choose one over the other, leaving the choice to inference.

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