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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint and non-idempotent, and the description layers on information annotations cannot express: the write is permanent with no edit/delete path, pinning silently unpins the previously pinned note (an important side effect on other records), and it returns the new note id. The underlying endpoint is even disclosed.

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?

Five short sentences, front-loaded with the operation class and subject, each one carrying distinct information (scope, permanence, side effect, return value). Zero filler.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return value, the permanence constraint, and the pinning side effect, which is most of what an agent needs. Minor residual gaps are the pinned default and content length limits, both of which are recoverable from the schema.

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 only 40%, so the description carries real weight, and it does clarify that subject and body are the note content and enumerates the entity types matching the entity_type enum. But it adds nothing about the pinned flag semantics beyond the schema, and the subject/body length bounds are left entirely to the schema.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('add one note') plus the exact hosting entity types (agent, group, individual, policy), and the cardinality constraint 'one note' separates it from bulk or list operations. An agent can distinguish it from agencybloc_list_notes without opening a 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?

The 'WRITE:' prefix and the audit-rule statement that notes can never be edited or deleted tell the caller this is the only way to record note content, which is strong usage context. It doesn't explicitly route to a sibling (e.g. list_notes to verify), so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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