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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false; the description adds genuinely new context beyond them — the note is visible to the hiring team, triggers no e-mail notifications, and is permanent because it cannot be edited or deleted through this server. That immutability note is exactly the kind of consequence an agent needs before a non-idempotent write.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the WRITE marker, then prerequisites and side effects. No filler and nothing buried.

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 3-required-parameter mutation with no output schema, it covers prerequisites, visibility, notification behavior and irreversibility. The only minor gap is not saying whether the call returns the new note's identifier or just a confirmation, which would help a caller that needs to reference the note later.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage the baseline is 3, and the description adds provenance for the two id parameters by naming talenthr_get_applicant as their source. It does not restate the note_text length limit, but the schema already documents that.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource pair ("WRITE: add an internal note to a job application") and scopes it as internal-only. An agent can distinguish it from read siblings like talenthr_get_applicant and from the other create tool, talenthr_create_time_off_request, without opening either 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?

States the prerequisites (job position id and application id) and routes the agent to talenthr_get_applicant to obtain them, which is clear use context. It does not, however, give explicit when-not conditions or contrast with other ways of recording applicant information.

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