save_coach_note

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

The 'Local only' note is genuinely useful behavioral context beyond readOnlyHint=false: it tells the agent this write is not synced/remote. However the description is silent on repeat-write behavior, whether review_on schedules a future reminder, and what the call returns.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the enum inline as a parenthetical; no filler. The trailing 'Local only' is terse but earns its place as real, non-schema 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?

For a 3-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and zero schema description coverage, the definition is thin: semantics of review_on, return behavior, and the boundary with update_coach_note are all missing.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully enumerates the valid kind values (plan|target|observation), which the schema leaves as an unconstrained string, but text and especially review_on are left completely undefined.

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 ('Remember' = persist a note) and names the concrete record types it can hold (plan, weekly target, observation). Siblings like get_coach_notes and update_coach_note are not addressed, so the agent must infer that this is the create path rather than having it stated.

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?

'Remember an agreed plan, weekly target or observation' implies the capture context, but nothing says when to choose this over update_coach_note (edit an existing note) or log_journal (a different journaling sibling). Usage is implied rather than routed.

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