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

Annotations mark this destructive, non-idempotent and mutating. The description adds real context the annotations cannot: confirmation is expected before calling, request_key is single-use and fails on a changed intent, and the MCP path skips confirmation_token and runs immediately. It does not say what record state is affected or how failures surface.

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?

Three sentences, all load-bearing: precondition, idempotency constraint, and the MCP-specific invocation path. Front-loaded with the action and confirmation requirement.

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?

Covers the confirmation flow and execution path in a mutation tool with no output schema. The main missing piece is where the note lands (on a lead, scoped how) and what the agent gets back beyond 'returns the result'.

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 100%, so every parameter is already documented including reminder_body's dependency on reminder_at. The description only adds the request_key uniqueness rule in prose; it does not elaborate on lead_id, body limits or due date format beyond 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Create a scoped note or reminder'. It distinguishes itself from create_reminder by framing the note as attached to a lead, but the boundary with create_reminder is never explicitly drawn.

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?

Gives a clear precondition: 'after an explicit confirmation of the exact lead, body, and due date', and tells the agent what to do over MCP (call once without confirmation_token). It stops short of naming alternatives such as create_reminder for standalone reminders.

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