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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false; the description goes well beyond that by enumerating the actual side effects — registering the close, converting "⏰" reminders into timed tasks, flipping the note to read-only — and by disclosing a non-obvious omission (declared tasks are not materialized here, unlike in-app). It also frames the operation as non-destructive but effectively irreversible except via reopen.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the app analogy, then the caveats, then the inverse operation — a logical order with no filler. It is somewhat dense and run-on (em-dash aside plus three tool references in five lines), which costs it the top mark.

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 2-param, no-output-schema mutation tool, the description covers triggers, side effects, the ordering constraint with create_task, and the undo path. It stops short of stating the response shape or what happens if the day is already closed / an invalid date is passed, which are the remaining gaps.

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% and both parameters (date as YYYY-MM-DD, workspace_id as UUID-or-name) are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no format, defaulting, or resolution semantics beyond that, 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+resource ("Cierra el día") and immediately anchors it to the analogous in-app button, while naming three siblings by name (get_declared_tasks, create_task, reopen_day_note). An agent can distinguish this from write_daily_note or reopen_day_note without opening any 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?

Explicit prescriptive guidance: provisional tasks from get_declared_tasks are NOT created here, so "si hacen falta, create_task antes de cerrar", and reopening is routed to reopen_day_note. This is a clear when-to-use / what-to-do-first / alternative-tool statement rather than inference.

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