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

Annotations already declare this as a non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent mutation. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: the note is signed with the signed-in user's name and today's date, mirrors the Notes tab's New Note action, does not notify staff, and can be retrieved via get_job.

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 and kept to four short sentences. There is slight overlap between the first two sentences about adding a note, but the extra sentence carries useful signing and notification context.

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 write tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers what happens, key side effects, and how to retrieve notes afterward. Only minor edge cases such as permissions or failure behavior are unstated.

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%, so both parameters are already documented. The description reinforces that the note is plain text and explains how it will be signed, but it adds no syntax, format, or constraint details beyond the schema.

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?

Starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Add a text note to a job's Notes tab.' It clearly distinguishes adding a note from reading notes via get_job, so an agent can identify the tool without opening the schema.

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 implies when to use it by describing the note's effect and that no staff are notified, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this versus other job-related tools such as log_time or update_job_status. Usage is inferable but not fully guided.

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