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

Adds traits the annotations don't: 'staff-only' discloses visibility scope, 'Audited' discloses that the action is logged, and 'Dry run by default' warns that the call previews rather than writes unless overridden. This is meaningful context for a non-readOnly, non-idempotent mutation, though it omits who is authorized and whether repeated identical adds create duplicates.

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?

Three compact fragments, purpose front-loaded, no filler. Each clause ('staff-only', 'links are kept', 'Audited', 'Dry run by default') carries a distinct piece of information.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the identifier semantics for entry are covered in-schema. The description covers visibility, audit, and the dry-run gate, leaving only minor gaps around authorization and duplicate-note behavior.

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 67%: entry and dry_run are documented in-schema, while text is not. The description partially compensates by specifying that text is 'plain text' and that 'links are kept', which is real semantic value the schema lacks, but it says nothing about length limits or content restrictions.

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 ('Add a ... note to an entry') and qualifies the note as 'staff-only internal', which sets it apart from public comments like comment_on_application. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from edit_entry_note or delete_entry_note, but the verb choice makes the distinction inferable.

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?

No statement of when to use this tool versus edit_entry_note, delete_entry_note, or list_entry_notes, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The only usage signal is the default dry_run behavior, which is implied rather than explained as a workflow step.

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