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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that earlier versions are retained (softening the destructiveHint=true), that a note can supersede an active one, and that a coach-memory permission plus an off-by-default setting are required. That is exactly the operational context an agent needs before attempting a 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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then retention semantics, then the permission prerequisite. No filler, though the permission clause is dense enough that it could be split for readability.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the important unknowns: retention of prior versions, supersede behavior, and the access prerequisite. It does not say what the call returns (e.g. a note identifier) or how failures surface, which is a minor remaining gap.

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 text, pinned, and category. The description's examples (equipment, constraints, agreed decision) loosely map to the category enum but add no format or constraint detail beyond the 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 ('Save a durable coach note ... to their P.R.O. account') and gives concrete examples of what counts (equipment, constraints, agreed decision). It does not name the read-side sibling 'recall', so the distinction from that tool is left implicit rather than stated.

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?

The phrase 'requested by the user' sets a clear trigger condition, and the description notes it can supersede an earlier active note, which tells the agent when to reuse this tool rather than create a parallel note. It stops short of explicitly routing the agent to 'recall' for reading or stating when not to save.

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