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

Adds real lifecycle context beyond the annotations: notes are dated and read at the start of every Autopilot run, and it explicitly reassures that it 'changes nothing in any account'. This reconciles the readOnlyHint=false annotation with an essentially non-destructive internal write. It does not mention auth/permission requirements or whether notes can later be edited.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then demonstrates with examples, then closes with behavioral facts. Dense but every clause earns its place; the inline examples make it slightly long but they are the most useful part.

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?

With annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema to explain, the description supplies purpose, usage context, lifecycle, and side-effect boundaries for a 2-parameter tool. Gaps are minor: no mention of return/confirmation behavior or how notes are removed.

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 50% (only 'client' is documented in the schema), so the description must carry the 'note' parameter. The three example notes do that well, illustrating acceptable content and granularity, though the 400-character limit and 'client name from list_clients' requirement are only discoverable in structured fields.

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 ('tell Autopilot a fact about a client') plus the exact condition that makes it valuable ('its data cannot show, so it stops asking'). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling note/preference tools like autopilot_set and autopilot_preference without opening either schema.

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 clear usage context through three concrete example notes that show the kind of information this tool is for. It does not, however, explicitly point to alternatives (autopilot_preference, highlevel_add_note) or state when not to use it.

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