property_notes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, and the description usefully adds that notes persist 'for future chats'. However, it never discloses that the tool also supports a delete action, whether deletion is permanent, whether notes are scoped to a single property, or what a list call returns — significant omissions for a stateful store.

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 compact sentence with no filler and the core concept ('context saved with a property') up front. It is efficient but border-line under-specified rather than merely tight, and the trailing colon list of kinds reads as an enumeration rather than a purpose statement.

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?

This is a five-parameter, mutating, open-world tool with 40% schema coverage and no output schema, so the description carries real weight. It omits the action lifecycle (add vs list vs delete), what happens on delete, and what a list returns, leaving an agent unable to use it correctly for anything but a default list call.

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 coverage is only 40%, but the description does add meaning for the hardest parameter by naming the note categories that correspond to the `kind` enum values. It gives nothing for `action` (list/add/delete), `note_id`, or `text`, leaving the create/delete workflow to be inferred from bare enum values.

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 conveys the resource (per-property notes/context) and the categories it stores (brand terms, migration dates, decisions, site changes), which maps to the `kind` enum. But it is phrased as a noun clause ('Context saved with a property') with no verb, so an agent cannot tell from the text that this tool lists, adds, and deletes notes, nor that 'list' is the default action.

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 no explicit when-to-use guidance: nothing says to call this before `query_segments` for brand terms, or to check existing notes before recording a decision. The only routing hint ('brand terms used by query_segments') lives in the schema's `kind` description, not here, and no sibling tool is named as an alternative or complement.

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