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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral fact beyond them - notes cannot be deleted via this server - and reveals the endpoint shape, but says nothing about the response, required permissions, or duplicate-note behavior.

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 tight sentences, write marker front-loaded, permitted parent types and the non-deletion caveat each stated once with no 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 six parameters, no output schema and half the parameters undocumented, the description leaves real gaps: what the call returns (e.g., a new note id for later reference), and the semantics of date/category/keywords. It is adequate to invoke the tool but thin for a write operation.

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 50%; date, category and keywords have no schema descriptions and the description compensates for none of them (no format, allowed values, or meaning). The prose parent list loosely maps to the enum, but the mapping is ambiguous (field vs plots, plant type vs plants) rather than clarifying.

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 and resource ('add a note') and enumerates the supported parent types, matching the schema enum. The 'WRITE:' prefix separates it from the read counterpart farmbrite_list_notes, though the sibling is never named explicitly.

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?

Usage context is implied by the enumerated parent types, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus farmbrite_list_notes or whether an existing note can/should be edited elsewhere. The only constraint given is that notes cannot be removed with this server.

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