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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does real work: it discloses that Core performs no speech-to-text and does not retain audio, which is exactly the fact an agent needs to avoid promising audio storage. It also inherits the visibility/pinning model from notes_add. It does not state permission requirements or whether the note is mutable afterward.

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 action, then constraints, then the cross-reference. 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?

Output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the non-obvious behaviors (no STT, no audio retained, inherited visibility rules) for a 14-param mutation. Missing only secondary detail like targeting semantics and permission preconditions.

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 only 57% across 14 params, but the description supplies meaning for the conspicuous gaps: transcript, duration, recorded_at and 'what transcribed it'. Visibility, pinning and mention behavior are pointed at notes.add rules, though target_kind/target_id/job_id/visit_id/media_ids relationships remain undocumented.

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 ('Save a voice memo as a note') and immediately scopes what the caller supplies, which separates it cleanly from notes_add and notes_update in the sibling list.

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?

'send the transcript your agent made' makes clear this is for the case where transcription happened client-side, and 'Same rules as notes.add' delegates audience/pinning semantics. It never explicitly says when to prefer notes_add instead, so it stops short of a full routing rule.

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