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

Annotations only supply destructiveHint=true, so the description carries most of the burden and does add real context: it is a write, the note becomes 'visible to the team', and it maps to the documented notes endpoint. It still omits whether the operation appends vs. overwrites and any auth/permission requirements.

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?

A single compact sentence with the write nature front-loaded in a 'WRITE:' prefix, followed by the resource and endpoint. No filler.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does not say what is returned after creating the note, but the required parameters and endpoint are covered and the visibility semantics are stated. Adequate for this simple two-parameter write.

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% and both parameters (body, candidate_id) are already documented with types and constraints, so the description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a note to a candidate's profile') plus the exact API endpoint, so the action is unambiguous. It is trivially distinguishable from the sibling list_candidate_notes, which reads rather than writes.

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 'WRITE:' prefix implies this is the mutation path for candidate notes, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., the note body must be non-empty, per the schema), and no named alternative.

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