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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is partly carried by structured data. The description adds only the REST endpoint mapping; it says nothing about permissions needed, whether re-creating on a missing entity fails, rate limits, or what happens with parent_note_id replies. A create/write tool with such thin behavioral disclosure warrants a low score.

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 short sentences with no filler and the core purpose front-loaded before the API mapping. It is efficiently sized, though the REST endpoint note is of marginal value to an agent.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers only the bare purpose. It omits behavior around private vs public visibility implications and threaded replies via parent_note_id, leaving gaps that the schema alone only partially fills.

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 documents all four parameters including the visibility enum and parent_note_id semantics. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the 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 ('Create a note') plus the scoping detail that the note attaches to an entity (person/company), which distinguishes it from sibling reads like folk_get_note and folk_list_notes. It does not, however, differentiate itself from other create tools such as folk_create_person/folk_create_company.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. the entity must already exist), and no exclusions. The agent is left to infer everything about invocation context.

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