Add a note to an offer

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

Annotations only declare idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds a meaningful behavioral fact not derivable from them - notes accumulate and are never overwritten - which reassures the agent that repeated calls append rather than replace. It also implies the timestamp is applied server-side ('dated note'). It stops short of saying what is returned, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

The purpose and target are front-loaded in the first clause, and the second sentence about accumulation is short and earns its place. The middle content list is slightly padded but still useful guidance.

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 two-parameter append tool with no output schema, the description covers what is created, where it goes, and the append-only behavior, which is most of what an agent needs. It omits any mention of permissions or the response shape, but neither is critical to invoking it 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 description coverage is 100% with only two required parameters (id, note), so the schema already documents both; the description adds the fact that the note becomes 'dated' and lives in a specific section. That is minor added meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb (adds), resource (note), and target (the 'Interview notes' section of an offer) in one clause, plus the note's expected content. No sibling tool in the list adds notes, so the agent can identify this tool unambiguously.

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 gives content guidance ('who interviewed the user, what they asked, feedback received') which implies when this tool is appropriate, but it never states an explicit when-to-use condition or names an alternative among siblings such as save_offer or record_gap. Usage must be inferred from the content examples.

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