Write a sticky

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions persistence and cross-session retention, which is useful, but it omits critical behavioral details such as permissions required, whether it creates a new note or updates an existing one, TTL behavior (though the schema hints at it), and any side effects. For a mutation tool, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 a single, well-structured sentence. It front-loads the action ('Create a persistent sticky note') and then provides usage context. There is zero filler or 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 5-parameter write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is somewhat thin. It explains the purpose and trigger condition, and the schema covers parameter details, but it lacks behavioral context like TTL, lifecycle, and side effects. It is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all five parameters (content, category, tags, importance, project_path). The description adds minimal extra meaning by listing category values (decision, blocker, etc.), but these duplicate the schema enum. With high schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'Create' and a clear resource 'persistent sticky note', which directly distinguishes it from the sibling tools stickies_read and stickies_dismiss. The phrase 'durable fact emerges' further clarifies the write intent.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Call this when a durable fact emerges... that future sessions should retain.' It provides clear context and categories of durable facts, but does not mention when not to use it or list alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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