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

Annotations already declare non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it acts as the connected person (identity of the actor), requires the post to be in review state, and is permitted for any brand member. It does not describe what happens to the review state or whether notes are editable/deletable, keeping it below 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?

Four short sentences, zero filler, with the core action and the actor identity front-loaded and the sibling exclusion placed last. Every clause carries decision-relevant information.

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 non-destructive note-creation call with a fully documented 5-parameter schema and no output schema, this is nearly complete. The only gap is that it doesn't say what an agent gets back or that the note appears in the review thread visible to clients, which would help an agent confirm success.

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 body, post_id, brand_id and reply_to are all documented in the schema already; baseline 3 applies. The description's mention of reply_to ('a note id to answer an existing note') essentially restates the schema's own wording rather than adding threading or ordering semantics.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Add a note to a social post's review') and anchors it to a familiar action ('the same as typing a note in the review screen'). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the nearest sibling by stating it does not approve or request changes and redirecting to review_post.

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?

States the precondition ('The post must have been sent for review'), the permission model ('Any member of the brand may'), and the exclusion plus alternative ('Does not approve or request changes; that is review_post'). An agent has everything needed to route between this and review_post.

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