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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, and the description earns credit by giving that destructiveness concrete meaning: 'Notes cannot be deleted through this API.' It also discloses audience visibility (team-only) and the endpoint/version (POST /notes/add, V0). It stops short of disclosing auth or permission requirements, so not a full 5.

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?

Three tight sentences with zero filler, front-loaded with the 'WRITE:' marker so the operation type lands first, followed by visibility, irreversibility, and endpoint in descending order of importance.

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 3-required-param mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essentials an agent needs: what it does, who sees it, that it is irreversible here, and the transport endpoint. It omits any note on permissions or response behavior, but with annotations carrying the safety profile this is close to complete.

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% – message, inbox_id, and conversation_id are all documented in the schema with type constraints. The description adds no syntax, format, or id/value guidance 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 ('add an internal note to a conversation') and immediately scopes it with 'Visible to your Helpwise team only; it is not sent to the customer,' which cleanly separates it from the customer-facing sibling helpwise_send_email. An agent can pick this over alternatives without opening any 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 internal-vs-customer-facing distinction gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate, and it is the natural counterpart to helpwise_send_email. However, it never names that alternative or states an explicit exclusion, so the routing is left partly to inference.

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