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

Annotations already flag this as a non-read-only, non-idempotent, destructive, open-world write. The description adds real value beyond them: notes are appended and never replaced, cannot be deleted via this server, and the job should be verified first - all of which explain the consequences of the destructiveHint/non-idempotent profile. It stops short of stating what a retry produces or what the endpoint returns.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the WRITE marker and the core action, followed by the behavioral caveats. The endpoint path is a useful compact anchor. 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?

For a two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers action, irreversibility, and a precondition, which is enough to call it correctly. The only gap is the absence of any statement about the response (e.g., whether the created note is returned), which is minor given there is no output 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% with only two required parameters, so the schema already documents job_id and text fully. The description only echoes them via '(text)' and 'to a job' and adds no format, length, or sourcing detail beyond the schema. 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?

The description opens with a scoped verb+resource ('WRITE: add an internal note (text) to a job') and the word 'internal' distinguishes it from any customer-facing note concept. It is trivially separable from the read-oriented siblings (get_job, list_jobs, get_customer).

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?

It gives one concrete precondition ('check the job first'), which is genuine usage guidance. However, it names no alternative tools and gives no explicit when-not-to-use condition, leaving usage implied rather than spelled out.

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