Add note

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false (mutation) and destructiveHint=false (not destructive). The description adds 'append' which clarifies it is additive, but does not elaborate on side effects or permissions. With annotations covering safety profile, description provides adequate but minimal extra behavioral context.

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 sentences plus a code example. Front-loaded with purpose and usage. Every word adds value, no redundancy. Example is concise and instructive.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema, clear annotations), the description covers all needed aspects: purpose, usage context, parameter details, and an example. No gaps remain for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 has 0% description coverage (no property descriptions), so the description carries full burden. It explicitly mentions both parameters (application_id and text) and describes text as 'free-text note' and 'multiline markdown is fine'. The example shows expected values and format, adding substantial meaning beyond the schema.

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 description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Append a free-text note to an application timeline' with specific examples of note types (recruiter call summaries, interview instructions). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_application or log_interview.

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 description provides explicit context on when to use the tool (recruiter call summaries, interview instructions, pasted messages) and includes a concrete example. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, but the provided context is sufficient.

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