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

With annotations already covering the read/write and open-world profile, the description adds genuinely non-structured context: notes are team-only and never client-visible, deleted notes are unrecoverable (so the agent should never delete), and a Cotlet API key with app access is required. These are valuable behavioral disclosures beyond the annotations.

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-loaded and generally tight, but the first two sentences say the same thing, wasting space; the later sentences about privacy, recoverability, and auth each earn their 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 simple two-parameter write with no output schema, the description covers privacy, irreversibility, autonomy expectations, and auth prerequisites. The only gap is any indication of what a successful call returns or whether the note is appended or replaces existing content.

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 both client_id and text are already documented in the schema; the description mentions no parameter format, constraints, or length limits. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema carries the full burden.

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 verb+resource is unambiguous ('Save a note on a client profile'), and the example use cases (color formula, preference) sharpen it. However, the second sentence ('Adds a simple note to a client profile') merely restates the first, and no sibling (e.g. fresha_add_client, fresha_get_client) is named to differentiate scope.

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?

Usage is implied through the examples (formulas, preferences) and the autonomy note ('runs without asking first'), but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance and no named alternative for capturing client information in another way.

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