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

Annotations already show readOnlyHint=false, indicating a write operation, but the description adds valuable behavioral detail: threads are flat, continuing a continuation belongs to the same thread, and retrying with the same client_id returns the already-created note instead of duplicating. This exceeds what annotations alone convey, though it does not cover topics like auth or side effects beyond creation.

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 sentences, all purposeful and directly relevant to correct invocation. The core action is front-loaded, followed by the two non-obvious parameter behaviors. No filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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?

The description covers the non-obvious aspects an agent needs: thread continuation semantics and idempotency. Since an output schema exists, return-value documentation is not strictly required. Minor gaps remain for title, tags, and source_url, but these are self-explanatory and do not undermine effective use of the tool.

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 50%, with title, tags, and source_url lacking schema descriptions. The description does add meaningful semantics for parent_id and client_id—explaining thread behavior and idempotency—but it leaves the other undocumented parameters unaddressed, so it only partially compensates for the schema gap.

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 opens with 'Create a note,' which is a specific verb plus resource and accurately reflects the tool's action. It also clarifies that passing parent_id continues an existing thread, adding scope beyond the bare title, though it does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools like append_to_note or update_note.

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 clear usage context for two important cases: pass parent_id to continue an existing thread rather than starting a new note, and pass client_id to make the call idempotent. It does not, however, explicitly state when to prefer sibling tools such as append_to_note or update_note, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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