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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true with destructiveHint=false, so the bar is lower; the description adds genuine context that the note is private, user-authored, and not published or transmitted. It does not, however, explain the idempotency/request_key or revision behavior beyond the annotation.

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 the action and scope, and every sentence carries information. 'The note is user-authored content' is mildly redundant but reinforces the privacy framing.

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?

With annotations covering safety/idempotency and an output schema covering the response, the remaining burden is parameter meaning. The description handles the evidence-reference parameters but is silent on the required idempotency key and revision parameter, leaving gaps for a 6-param write tool.

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 only 17% (just request_key), so the description must compensate. It usefully clarifies that strategy_id/run_id are optional 'exact owned' evidence references, but leaves the required request_key and the revision parameter unexplained, and adds nothing about title/note beyond the schema constraints.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource (save a research note), states the scope (NEW, private, in the connected workspace) and the optional evidence-linking capability. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like list_research or update_strategy 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?

Implies usage (capturing user-authored research) and gives one exclusion via 'Does not publish or send it anywhere,' but never names an alternative tool or states when to prefer saving a note versus, say, updating a strategy. Guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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