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

Annotations already declare a non-destructive, non-idempotent write (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the safety profile is partly covered. But the description adds nothing behavioral — notably it never mentions that an approval_id may be required for human-approved execution, nor any auth/precondition context. This is a real gap on a tool with an approval workflow in its schema.

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?

A single efficient sentence with no redundancy. It is slightly mis-front-loaded, opening on a 'When the user…' trigger rather than the action, but it is not bloated.

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 6-parameter tool with an approval_id workflow, this description is too thin. Output schema means return values needn't be explained, but the description omits even the core fact that it creates/attaches a note, plus the approval precondition, leaving the agent under-informed about how to invoke it correctly.

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 all six parameters with no room for the description to add meaning. The description only loosely gestures at 'a person' (contact_id) and note content (body), adding nothing beyond the schema. 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?

The description conveys intent (writing a note about a person that is kept on their record) but never states the actual action verb — it describes the user's motivation rather than 'creates a note attached to a contact.' Paired with the name/title the purpose is inferable, but the description alone does not clearly distinguish this from siblings like journal.create or memory.remember.

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?

It supplies a trigger context ('when the user wants to jot something down about a person'), which is more than nothing. However, it offers no when-not guidance and does not differentiate from closely related siblings such as memory.remember, journal.create, or interactions.log, leaving the agent to guess which write path to choose.

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