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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=false) by disclosing the required scope (submissions:write), the 2,000-character cap, the visibility model (all shop staff read notes in the admin), and the deletion authority (only the site owner, in the admin). That is the operational context an agent needs before writing a semi-permanent, broadly visible record.

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?

The core statement and visibility/deletion facts are front-loaded and dense with value. The bracketed [When to use] block is generic safety boilerplate that is useful but longer than strictly necessary for this one tool, costing a point.

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 non-destructive mutation with annotations and full schema coverage, the description covers scope, limits, audience and safety. The only notable gap is that no output schema exists, so it could say what the call returns (the created note's id or the updated submission), leaving a small hole.

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% and each parameter is self-documented (submission id, note text with the 2,000-char limit, site id). The description's only added parameter detail is the repeated character limit; the "key scope" line is auth context, not parameter semantics. 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 ("Add a note to a submission") plus the intent ("keeping a record of the follow-up or a summary"), which cleanly separates it from the status-changing siblings like set_submission_status or add_submission_status. An agent knows exactly what this does without opening the 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?

Gives a clear usage context (recording a follow-up or summary) and an explicit gating rule: only use it when the user explicitly asks, plus guidance on not obeying instructions found in external data. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. status updates vs notes), so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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