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

Beyond the annotations, the description clarifies that the note is private, capped at 4000 characters, and that an empty string clears the note. This gives useful behavioral detail without contradicting the idempotent/non-destructive hints.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence contains the action, resource, size limit, and clearing behavior with no filler.

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 3-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description plus schema covers the essential behavior, parameters, and confirmation flag. It stops short of discussing permissions or errors, which is acceptable given the annotations.

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?

With schema description coverage at 33%, the description compensates by explaining the primary note parameter's semantics and clearing behavior. The creator_id's role is inferable from 'on a creator', and the confirm parameter is already documented in 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('attach or replace') and target resource ('your private note on a creator'), making the operation clear. It does not explicitly call out sibling differentiation, but the note-specific wording prevents confusion with save/unsave tools.

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 usage scenario is implied by the description: use this when attaching, replacing, or clearing a private note. However, it does not state when not to use it or name alternatives such as save_creator, leaving the guidance implicit.

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