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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the write/mutability profile is covered. The description adds non-annotation context that matters: admin-only authorization, end-user invisibility, and the concrete endpoint POST /api/v2/admin/notes. It does not explain the destructiveHint, though for an append-style note creation there is little to disclose beyond this.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the 'WRITE:' signal and then the key constraint (admins only, invisible to end users), closing with the endpoint. No filler or redundancy.

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-parameter write tool with no output schema and annotations that already carry the safety profile, the description covers operation, audience, visibility and endpoint — enough to call it correctly. Missing only minor details such as error behavior or whether the note body is rendered as plain text (that lives in the schema).

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% — suggestion_id, body and parent_note_id are each documented in the schema. The description echoes the optional reply relationship ('optionally as a reply to another note') but adds no format, constraint or edge-case detail beyond the schema, so the 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 (add) and resource (internal note on a suggestion), plus the scope qualifiers that separate it from siblings: 'admins only, never shown to end users'. An agent can distinguish this from uservoice_add_comment (public comment) 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?

Gives clear context for use: an internal, admin-only note attached to a suggestion, optionally threaded as a reply. The visibility restriction implicitly routes public-facing responses to uservoice_add_comment, but no sibling is named explicitly and there is no explicit when-not guidance.

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