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, and the 'WRITE:' prefix is consistent with them. Beyond that, the description adds genuine context: the optional colleague notification side effect and the fact that it returns the new note's id, which the annotations do not state.

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 mutation flag, the resource scope, an example, the side effect, and the return value — all front-loaded with zero filler. The trailing API mapping ('notes.create') is cheap but useful grounding.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly discloses the return value (new note id), and the annotations cover the safety profile. It is nearly complete; only the absence of explicit usage boundaries keeps it short of a 5.

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%, so every parameter is already documented, giving a baseline of 3. The description's subject enumeration loosely mirrors the subject_type enum but adds no format, UUID, or notify-list semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 ('WRITE: add a note'), then enumerates the concrete attachable subjects plus an example ('a call summary'). Nothing in the sibling list does the same thing, so an agent can distinguish it immediately without opening the 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?

Usage is implied by the subject list ('add a note to a contact, company, deal...'), which tells the agent what situations the tool fits. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative (e.g., whether to use a task or note for follow-ups), so a 3 rather than a 4.

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