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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which only partially cover the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that — no mention of side effects, what happens on success/failure, required permissions, or return behavior. For a mutating create operation with sparse annotations, the description carries a burden it does not fulfill.

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 sentences with zero wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the routing guidance to the sibling tool follows immediately. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple two-parameter create tool with full schema coverage and no output schema or nested objects, the description covers purpose and routing adequately. The main gap is behavioral detail (return/error behavior), but the tool's simplicity keeps this from being a critical omission.

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 both parameters (text = comment body, taskId = task to comment on, with a source hint). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond this, so baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('free-text comment/note to a standalone task'). It clearly distinguishes this from the sibling create_standalone_attachment by explicitly noting this tool is text only, so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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 description explicitly names the alternative (create_standalone_attachment) and the condition that selects it ('for files/images — this tool is text only'). This is clear routing guidance, though it doesn't cover positive selection criteria beyond the obvious 'add text to a task' case.

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