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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one genuine behavioral trait — the note is written for human consumption — but says nothing about immutability, whether notes can later be edited or removed, permissions, or failure modes when the task_id is invalid.

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 short sentences, verb and resource front-loaded, with the audience note second. Nothing is wasted and nothing is buried.

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 append operation with a fully documented schema and no output schema, this covers what an agent needs to call it. Only the mutation/immutability semantics are missing, which is a minor gap at this complexity.

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%: both parameters have descriptions and task_id carries format/pattern constraints and note carries length bounds. The description adds no syntax or formatting guidance beyond the schema, so the 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?

States a specific verb (add) and resource (note to a task), plus the kinds of content it carries: progress, findings, decisions. That distinguishes it from taskhold_update and taskhold_progress by implication, though it never names those siblings 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?

'The human reads these' hints that the tool is for human-facing commentary rather than state changes, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no pointer to a sibling such as taskhold_update when the intent is to change fields rather than annotate.

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