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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), the description discloses real behavior: the answer is stored on the connection, survives a reconnect, applies to every home, and re-invocation is a no-op once named. That idempotency and persistence detail is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot convey.

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?

Length is reasonable and little is wasted, but the structure is poor: the single actionable instruction (call after a NOT FOUND from save_note) appears at the very end, behind four sentences of metaphor-heavy prose. Front-loading the trigger would substantially improve it.

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 one-parameter tool with full schema coverage, annotations, and no output schema, the description covers trigger, idempotency, persistence, and scope. The main gap is that the phrasing is indirect enough that an agent must reread to extract the operating condition.

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 coverage is 100% and the single 'shelf' parameter is already documented in the schema, including the note that the plugin appends the word 'Notes'. The description adds only the implicit precondition that this applies where the plugin has no name, so 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 verb+resource is present ('Name the notes folder this platform stages to'), so the core action is identifiable, but it is buried in opaque framing about 'Living Projects', names 'given at the door', and 'registration'. It never states plainly how this differs from siblings like setup_home or connect_storage, which also configure per-platform storage.

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 an explicit trigger ('Pressed once after a NOT FOUND answer from save_note; the same save then goes through') and an explicit no-op condition ('once a note is saved under a name... pressing this again changes nothing'). It also scopes usage ('Notes only — captures do not depend on it'), though it does not name an alternative tool to use instead when the platform is already named.

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