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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: it discloses the auth requirement ('Authorization: Bearer <deputy token>') and clarifies the write is a side-channel note that 'changes nothing on a page', complementing destructiveHint=false. It stops short of saying whether repeated calls duplicate notes or who can see them.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the actor and action, then side-effect scope, then auth requirement. Every sentence carries information an agent needs before invoking.

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 3-required-param write tool with no output schema, the description covers actor, target, side-effect scope and auth. Only minor gaps remain (duplicate-call behavior, visibility of the note), which the annotations partially mitigate.

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 67% and the enum for item_kind is already documented in the schema. The description's reference to 'an item in the domain's queue' reinforces that item_kind/item_id come from deputy_queue, but adds no format or content guidance for 'note' beyond the schema's length limit.

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: 'adds a triage note for the mayor on an item in the domain's queue.' The domain/deputy framing distinguishes it from generic note tools, but it never names its closest sibling (deputy_draft) to draw a boundary.

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?

'For a Deputy' plus 'an item in the domain's queue' implies the caller and target context, and 'Changes nothing on a page' hints that this is not a content edit. However, no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or alternative (e.g. deputy_draft for drafting vs this for triage notes) is given.

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