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

The description adds meaningful context beyond the annotations: it identifies the operation as a write, discloses the side effect that each call adds a new note, and warns against blind retries. It also names the underlying POST endpoint, though it does not explain permissions, failure behavior, or why destructiveHint is true for an additive note.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the operation type and action, followed by the key non-idempotency warning and endpoint. It is short, structured, and every sentence contributes information.

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 three-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential action, side effect, and endpoint. The main remaining gap is the lack of routing guidance relative to add_stop_note, but otherwise it gives enough context to invoke the tool 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 moderate at 67%, and the description clarifies that the note is text, is attached to a shipment, and may optionally be tied to one of the shipment's stops. This adds useful relationship context beyond the field-level schema descriptions, though it does not mention the note length limit or explicitly map all parameters.

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 text note to a shipment, optionally tied to a stop. It clearly distinguishes this as a write operation, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling locate2u_add_stop_note tool.

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?

It gives useful guidance against blind retries because each call adds a new note, but it does not explain when to use this tool versus locate2u_add_stop_note or locate2u_list_shipment_notes. Usage is implied by the write verb and endpoint rather than fully specified.

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