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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds materially: it calls the operation additive and low-risk and discloses the exact confirmation ceremony (status='confirmation_required', action_id, plan_token, write only after confirm_action). An agent knows precisely what will and will not happen on invocation.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then parameters, then the confirmation contract. Sentences earn their place, though the uppercase CONFIRMATION block is slightly verbose and the parameter sentence is a compact run-on that mixes required and optional fields.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by describing the returned status/action_id/plan_token. Combined with the mutation-safety annotations, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only the structure of the 'extracted' array remains under-specified.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It identifies 'title' as required and gives the 'date' format (YYYY-MM-DD), but 'raw_notes' and especially the 'extracted' array are only glossed as 'an extracted list of action items' with no item shape or element semantics, leaving a real gap for two of four parameters.

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 verb and resource ('Create a meeting note') plus a scope qualifier ('in the caller's active workspace'). It is clear what the tool does, though it never explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling create_note/create_notes, leaving the agent to infer the meeting-specific variant.

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?

It explains the calling context (caller's active workspace) and, more importantly, walks the agent through the required two-step flow: the tool only proposes, then confirm_action performs the write. That is actionable when-to-use guidance, but there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or a named alternative for non-meeting notes.

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