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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the description's only genuine contribution is that projectId is derived from credentials. It says nothing about the consequence that matters most here — that a public note may be broadcast to status page subscribers (exposed as shouldStatusPageSubscribersBeNotifiedOnNoteCreated) — nor about visibility, immutability, or notification side effects.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, which is good, but the third sentence ("Fields: oneuptime_describe_resource") is a wasted pointer that reads like a templating artifact. The few words present are efficient; they are simply spent on the wrong thing.

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 7-parameter mutation with nested objects, 14% schema coverage, no output schema, and a destructiveHint, this definition leaves far too much undocumented. An agent cannot tell how to format the DateTime object, what attachments accept, or what the notification flag changes about the call's blast radius.

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 14% across 7 parameters, so the description should compensate and does not. It explains only that projectId is credential-derived; the single attempt at field documentation, "Fields: oneuptime_describe_resource", is a dangling reference to a sibling tool rather than any explanation of note, postedAt, attachments, postedFromSlackMessageId, or the subscriber-notification flag.

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 sentence "Create a Incident Public Note" only restates the tool name and title; it adds no verb detail, scope, or effect (e.g. that the note is visible on the public status page). It does at least anchor the resource as an incident's public note, distinguishing it loosely from create_incident_internal_note, but the description itself carries none of that differentiation.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the obvious alternatives (add_incident_note, create_incident_internal_note, create_incident_public_note's own update/delete counterparts). An agent must infer from the name alone that this is the public-facing vs. internal note path.

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