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

Annotations only say the operation is not read-only and not idempotent. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail: notes hang off the goal rather than an acceptance criterion, they are not counted as evidence, they are visible in the goal detail panel, and they are returned by goal-get under notes[]. This goes well beyond what annotations provide.

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?

The description is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence earns its place: one for what the tool does, one for the critical evidence distinction and alternative tool, and one for visibility and return behavior. No filler or redundant restatement.

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-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, content guidance, non-evidence semantics, the sibling alternative, persistence behavior, and where results appear. An agent has enough information to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 the schema already documents goalId as a UUID and text as markdown. The description reinforces that the text is free-form markdown and describes the content intent, but it does not add meaning beyond the schema for either parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description states a specific action and resource: 'Add a free-form note (markdown supported) to a goal'. It clearly distinguishes notes from evidence by naming the alternative goal-attach-evidence and explaining that notes are not acceptance-criterion proof. The purpose is unambiguous and easily differentiated from the many sibling goal-* tools.

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 description gives explicit usage guidance: use notes for decisions, dead ends, and session context; do NOT use them as evidence because they never count toward AC coverage or goal closing. It names the exact alternative tool, goal-attach-evidence, and explains the selection condition.

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