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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real content: duplicate creation on every call (with a retry recipe) and the null-default behavior for omitted visibility fields. Auth requirements and rate limits are still unmentioned, so not a 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?

Four short front-loaded sentences: action, safety gate, retry semantics, defaulting note, then the endpoint. Nothing is padded or repeated.

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 an 8-param mutation with no output schema, the description covers the write intent, confirmation gate, duplicate risk, and default handling well. The remaining gap is the meaning of the priority-related parameters, which an agent must infer from the enum alone.

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 0% across 8 parameters, so the description has to carry the load. It only hints at 'visibility' fields and their omission default; priority, priority_date, and property_id semantics are left entirely to the raw schema types and enum.

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 'WRITE:' prefix plus 'add a note to a property' gives a specific verb and resource, and it clearly separates itself from the read-side siblings (opentoclose_get_property_note, opentoclose_list_property_notes) 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?

'Confirm the property and note content/visibility with the user first' sets a concrete prerequisite, and 'inspect current notes before retrying' effectively routes the agent to the list sibling before re-invoking. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use statement, so 4 rather than 5.

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