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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false), so the description is not carrying the safety burden alone. It still adds real context beyond them: the comment is internal-only and never sent to the customer, and the call requires the comments.write scope. It omits that non-idempotency means repeat calls produce duplicate notes.

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 short sentences, zero filler. The mutation marker comes first, then scope, then audience, then the permission requirement — front-loaded and easy to scan.

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 4-param write tool with no output schema, the description covers the mutation nature, audience, and required permission, which is most of what an agent needs. It leaves out duplicate-creation risk from the non-idempotent hint and says nothing about what the call returns (e.g. a comment id).

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 100%, so every parameter including mentioned_staff_ids ('Staff to notify') is already documented in the schema. The description adds no field-level semantics beyond loosely covering the target types with the word 'document'; 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 a comment (note)') and enumerates the record kinds it attaches to. The leading 'WRITE:' marker distinguishes it from the sibling read tool sellsy_search_comments, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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 and the target list imply when to reach for this tool rather than a read or create-entity tool, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of sellsy_search_comments as the read-side alternative.

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