Check multi-note write progress

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description explicitly discloses 'Never writes or retries' and the important nuance that missing receipts do not prove the absence of pending writes. It also reveals the return content ('per-request receipt, current-byte and index evidence with next actions'), which is valuable context not present in the annotations.

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 description is five compact sentences with no filler. It front-loads the purpose, then covers optional parameters, return evidence, safety behavior, and a critical caveat—all without 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 single-parameter tool with an output schema and read-only annotations, the description covers the essential context: what the tool checks, when to use it, what inputs matter, what it returns, what it never does, and an important interpretation caveat. An agent has enough to call it correctly without additional inference.

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?

The parameter-level schema coverage is reported as 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining the requests parameter. It clarifies that requests are retained note/request_id references and explains the optional expected_hash's purpose ('to detect conflicts'), though it does not detail the request_id format or note path constraints beyond what the nested schema already says.

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 states a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('retained note/request_id references after a partial multi-note update'), which is clear and not tautological. It does not explicitly name a sibling tool as an alternative, but the write-progress focus and 'Never writes or retries' help distinguish it from write-oriented and history-oriented siblings.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: after a partial multi-note update, with optional expected_hash to detect conflicts. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the behavioral caveat 'Missing receipts do not prove no pending write exists' is a useful precaution.

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