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

Annotations cover the safety profile (non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, openWorld), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavioral value: the note is visible to the team in the workspace and is hidden from public links unless those links include notes, which is meaningful disclosure for an openWorld 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, purpose front-loaded, zero filler. Each sentence carries distinct information (action, team visibility, public-link behavior).

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?

The tool has an output schema, full parameter documentation, and annotations, so the description needn't cover returns or safety. What it does cover — purpose and visibility semantics — is sufficient for correct invocation, though it omits any guidance on when this note tool is preferred over its siblings.

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% and both parameters are already documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no format, length, or sourcing syntax beyond what the schema provides.

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 ('Adds') and resource ('a talking point to a signal'), and the resource noun distinguishes it from siblings like add_battlecard_note and add_digest_note. An agent can route to it 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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-use guidance, nor any reference to sibling note tools. Usage is implied by the name and the visibility sentence, but the agent gets no rule for choosing this over add_digest_note or add_battlecard_note.

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