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

Annotations already signal a non-readonly, non-destructive write operation. The description adds useful behavioral context: the operation appends rather than overwrites, produces a free-standing note rather than a screenshot-bound annotation, and depends on an existing review from create_review. This goes beyond the annotation hints.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the operation and key distinction; the second gives practical use cases. Every clause earns its place.

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 three-parameter tool with no output schema, the description gives enough context to call it correctly: it identifies the parent resource, the write authorization requirement via claim_token, and the intended use cases. It does not describe the return behavior, but that is not essential here.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description itself does not add parameter-level detail, but the schema already documents review, claim_token, and text well, including the special saved-review token case.

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 clearly states the operation: append a free-standing text note to a review. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from add_screenshot by saying the note is not tied to a screenshot, leaving no ambiguity about what tool to pick.

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 provides practical use cases: context, steps taken, or a summary of findings between screenshots. It implies when add_note is appropriate and contrasts with screenshot-based additions, though it does not explicitly list exclusions or name alternative tools.

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