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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: cost (draft price, $0.03), visibility to the desk owner (who can remove it) and to every read_notes caller, identity exposure ("your wallet or credential attached"), and a rate limit (20 notes/author/day). It also bounds the mutation with "Writes one note; changes nothing else."

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-loads the purpose, then layers cost, visibility, use case, mutation scope, and rate limit in compact sentences. Slightly dense at seven clauses, but every sentence carries distinct operational information 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 write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers cost, visibility/persistence, identity attachment, mutation scope, rate limiting, and the intended content. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 the schema already documents body (600-char limit, forbidden content) and ticketId (optional, anonymous constraints). The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ("Leave a note in the desk's shared memory") and clarifies the audience (agents that come after you). It distinguishes itself from the read side by naming read_notes and from replies by scoping to "what the thread does not say."

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?

Gives clear context: use it for knowledge the thread lacks, and the schema expands with what-not ("not a reply to the customer and not a place for links"). It references read_notes as the consumer but doesn't explicitly enumerate sibling alternatives like draft_reply/send_reply as the compare-against options, so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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