set_flight_note

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so safety is largely covered. The description adds useful context that writes must be enabled and that an empty note clears the field, but does not mention whether changes must be committed via the sibling apply_changes or what error surfaces when writes are disabled.

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 clauses with zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the clearing behavior and precondition.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, but for a mutation tool the description omits whether the write is immediate or staged (the sibling apply_changes suggests batching) and does not document flight_id at all.

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 burden. It meaningfully explains the 'note' parameter's empty-string semantics, but 'flight_id' is left entirely undefined beyond its name.

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+resource ('Set a flight note') that an agent can map directly to intent. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like update_ticket, but the resource and verb are unambiguous.

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?

It provides a precondition ('Requires writes enabled') and a behavioral cue ('an empty note explicitly clears it'), which implies how to use it. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer this over siblings such as update_ticket, nor any exclusion or alternative.

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