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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description needn't restate safety. It does add one useful behavioral detail beyond the annotations — that 'notes' overwrites while 'append_note' appends — but says nothing about how the two interact if sent together, or about partial-update behavior when only some fields are supplied.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence enumerating the three supported mutations with zero filler. Every clause maps to a capability the tool actually has.

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 write tool with no output schema, the description covers the main mutation paths but leaves gaps: interaction between 'notes' and 'append_note', the purpose of 'applied_at', and what a successful update returns are all unaddressed. Adequate to call the tool, but not complete enough to call it confidently.

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 60%, so the description must carry some of the burden. It usefully distinguishes 'notes' (replace) from 'append_note' (append), which the bare schema does not, but it never mentions 'applied_at' at all and adds nothing about the 'job' identifier beyond what the schema already documents.

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+resource ('Change a tracked role's status') and enumerates the mutation surfaces (status, notes, append_note), which an agent can distinguish from siblings like track_application and add_to_list. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling to use instead when the role isn't yet tracked.

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 three enumerated operations ('change status', 'replace notes', 'append a dated note') imply when each parameter is relevant, giving usable context. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. the role must already be tracked vs. using track_application), and no note about combining status and note changes in one call.

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