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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the write semantics are covered structurally. The description adds one genuine behavioral fact beyond that — the note is 'sealed to you', i.e. private to the author — but says nothing about duplicates, mutability (update_my_note exists), or visibility to other campaign members.

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 with no waste, and the privacy statement is front-loaded. The phrasing is somewhat terse and florid ('if it wants one' lives in the schema, not here), but nothing is padded.

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 5-parameter create tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the definition covers the essentials and explicitly states the return value ('Returns: The note.'). It still omits permissions, whether a title is generated when absent, and how the note differs from a session note, which are relevant for a write operation.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does add a little meaning by framing sessionDate and entitySlug as optional filing choices and making clear the note can stand alone as scratch, but it does not explain body/title/campaign semantics beyond what the schema already states.

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 conveys the resource ('A note sealed to you') and implies creation via the filing options, but it never uses a creation verb and does not distinguish this tool from siblings like create_session_note, add_session_note, or create_pin. An agent must infer from the name that this writes a new private note rather than filing an existing one.

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?

'File it on a play date or a wiki page, or leave it as scratch' explains the optional association modes, which is genuine usage context. However, there is no guidance on when to choose this over the several sibling note/pin creation tools, and no prerequisites (campaign membership, auth) are stated.

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