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

Annotations already declare this is a non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent write. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: notes are private to the signed-in user and an existing title causes continuation rather than a new note, which explains the non-idempotent semantics. It still omits any mention of permissions or return behavior, but with annotations present that is a minor gap.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero waste. The core action and the crucial continuation behavior are both front-loaded and easy to scan.

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 three-parameter save tool with full schema descriptions and safety annotations, the description covers purpose, scope, and the key append behavior. It doesn't explain return values or failure modes, but no output schema exists and the core call requirements are clear.

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 100% and the schema already explains each parameter in detail, including reusing an existing title. The description mostly restates the same fields without adding syntax, format, or edge-case guidance beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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: add to the signed-in user's private notes with a title, free text, and checklist. It also scopes the resource as private, implying a distinction from sibling tools like addBoardNotes, though it doesn't name any alternative explicitly.

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 gives one useful usage rule: reusing an existing title continues that note. However, it doesn't say when to choose this over addBoardNotes or other save* siblings, leaving the when-to-use context implied rather than explicit.

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