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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond them: the note is visible to the team in the workspace. It does not mention that repeated calls duplicate the talking point (non-idempotent) or any permission requirement.

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, purpose stated first and the visibility side-effect second. No filler, nothing that fails to earn its place.

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 add operation with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description covers the essentials but omits the non-idempotent consequence of repeat calls and any note about who may add points to a digest. Adequate but with visible gaps.

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%, with the schema itself documenting 'the talking point, in plain text' and 'a digest id or slug from list_digests', so the baseline is 3. The description adds no format, length, or sourcing detail beyond what the schema already says.

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 names a specific verb (adds) and resource (a talking point to a digest), which cleanly separates it from the sibling note tools that target battlecards or signals. It does not, however, explicitly name those siblings as alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus add_signal_note or add_battlecard_note, nor any preconditions such as needing a digest id from list_digests. The agent must infer the usage context entirely from the noun 'digest'.

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