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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context the annotations cannot express: the note's internal-only visibility and the required editor role (auth need). It omits any mention of length limits or the result of the call.

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 short sentences, each carrying distinct information (purpose, visibility, permission) with the core action front-loaded. 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 simple three-parameter create tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, visibility semantics, and authorization adequately. The one meaningful gap is the undocumented 'text' parameter, whose constraints must be inferred from the schema alone.

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%: project_id and conversation_id document their provenance via dosai_list_projects/dosai_list_conversations, while the required 'text' parameter has no schema description. The description implies the note body is free text but adds no format, length, or content guidance beyond what the schema already constrains (1-4000 chars).

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 and resource ('Leave an internal note on a dialog'), which is immediately distinguishable from the read sibling (dosai_list_conversation_notes) and from client-facing sends like dosai_send_operator_message. It stops short of naming an alternative explicitly, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than spelled out.

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?

'The client does not see it' gives a clear selection condition: use this when the note must stay internal rather than reach the customer. The editor-role prerequisite adds a further gating condition, though no alternative tool is named for the client-visible case.

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