Pin a note to a date, client or campaign

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true; the description adds the materially important behavior that the write is gated behind confirm:true and that there is no server-side dry run, with a preview returned instead. That is genuine disclosure beyond structured fields, though it omits auth requirements, duplicate-prevention semantics, and any limits on note volume or rate.

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 short sentences, with the action and the endpoint front-loaded and the safety constraint immediately after. The parenthetical about no server-side dry run is dense but earns its place; there is no filler or repetition.

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 gated write tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical agent-facing facts: it is a write, it needs confirm:true, and a preview comes back otherwise. The remaining gap is the undocumented nested body fields, which neither schema nor description explains, but a caller can still invoke the tool correctly from what is given.

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 67%, so the baseline is 3; the confirm and idempotencyKey parameters are already documented in the schema and the description only repeats the confirm behavior. The nested body object (body, date, clientId, campaignId) carries no descriptions in the schema and the description adds no meaning about which pinning target should be supplied or whether they are mutually exclusive.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Pin a note") plus the target dimensions (date, client, campaign) and the underlying endpoint POST /v1/notes. It is clearly distinct from notes_list/notes_update/notes_delete by implication, but it never names those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than 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?

There is real guidance on the confirm gate ("not executed unless confirm: true"), which is effectively a when-to-use rule for the execution path. However, nothing tells the agent when to use notes_create versus notes_update (e.g., for adding a note to an existing entity) or what prerequisite data it needs first, so the routing guidance is only partial.

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