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

Adds behavior beyond the annotations: overwrite semantics ('Saving the same name again replaces it'), and the important non-effect that 'we never look inside it and the audit engine never reads it,' so it cannot alter Postclick's behavior. This complements idempotentHint/destructiveHint with the concrete consequence an agent needs.

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?

Front-loads the key point ('Free') and is well-organized, but the conversational tone makes it slightly longer than needed for a 3-parameter tool. Every sentence still carries information, so no serious bloat.

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?

No output schema exists (and none is needed), and the description explains persistence, retrieval paths (get_notes and via the record itself), and that it has no engine side effects. An agent has everything required to call 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds real meaning by stressing the key is user-chosen and that 'any name, any value' is accepted, plus re-save replaces. That contextualizes value/key beyond their terse schema descriptions.

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 (attach/save) and resource (arbitrary name/value notes on a record), and clearly frames the scope as free-form metadata that attaches to 'any record.' It distinguishes itself from read-side siblings by naming get_notes as the retrieval counterpart.

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 clear context for use ('so the work you do around these audits survives between conversations') and names the alternative for reading back (get_notes). It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but the intended use case is unambiguous.

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