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

Annotations show readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, which are sparse aid. Description adds bulk support but doesn't clarify whether operation is reversible, permission requirements, or effects on note sharing. It does not contradict annotations, but adds minimal behavioral context.

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?

Description is brief and front-loaded: one line for main purpose, one line for bulk support. No waste, but could include more details without losing conciseness.

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?

Tool has moderate complexity with 5 parameters and no output schema. Description is minimal, leaving unspecified parameters unexplained. Without annotations providing detail, the description is incomplete for effective invocation, especially in bulk mode.

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 description must compensate. Description only explains email and note_id implicitly, but does not explain unsafe, account, or note_ids. This is insufficient given 5 parameters, many of which are undefined in the schema.

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?

Description specifies verb 'remove' and resource 'colaborador (por email) de uma nota', with the note that it removes a collaborator by email from a note. It distinguishes from sibling keep_add_note_collaborator, but could be more specific about the type of collaborator (e.g., editor vs viewer) and the effect on permissions, so not a 5.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention cases like removing yourself, handling non-existent collaborators, or that bulk mode might have specific use cases. The bulk support note is a hint but not explicit enough.

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