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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description explains why retries are dangerous (each call appends a new note, so duplicates accumulate) and who can see the note. It also names the underlying endpoint, POST /stops/{id}/notes, which is concrete behavioral context the annotations do not provide.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the operation class and the key caution. Nothing is repeated from the title, and the endpoint reference is compact and useful.

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 two-parameter write with minimal annotations and no output schema, the description covers visibility, idempotency risk, and the API path. It does not say what the call returns (the created note or its ID), which an agent might want, but the essentials for correct invocation are present.

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 50%: 'note' is documented in the schema, and stop_id is self-evident but undocumented. The description implies the two inputs (a stop and note text) but adds no format, length, or ID-source detail beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline at this coverage level.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('add a text note to a stop'), and the WRITE prefix signals the operation class immediately. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling readers like locate2u_list_stop_notes and from the shipment-scoped locate2u_add_shipment_note.

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 states the useful context — the note is visible to the team and the driver — and gives an explicit caution against blind retries. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., list_stop_notes for reading existing notes), so it is clear but not fully comparative.

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