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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=false, and the description usefully explains what that means in practice: existing content 'is not changed or removed' and new text is appended at the end. That adds real behavioral context beyond the flags, though it says nothing about permission requirements or how impersonation via the person parameter affects the write.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then the usage cue, then the non-destructive guarantee. Every sentence earns its place with no repetition of the schema.

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 six-parameter append tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description covers purpose, when to use it, and the key side-effect boundary. Return behavior is not described, but no output schema exists and the operation is simple enough that this is a minor gap.

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 100%, so noteId, body, person, project, companyId, and dry_run are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter nuance, which is the expected baseline when the schema carries the full burden.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Add to the end of a note that already exists') and immediately distinguishes the action from creating a new note: 'instead of making a second one.' An agent can separate this from note_save or note_update without opening any 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?

It states a clear condition for use: 'Call this to keep adding to a note whose id you already have,' and implicitly defines the contrasting case (no id yet, use save instead). It does not name a sibling tool explicitly or state exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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