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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real context: free-plan quota consumption (100 items), that other editors see the card, that nobody is notified, and that dragging to trash undoes it. It also flags the auth prerequisite (Cotlet API key with app access). Only the return payload beyond 'its ID' is left unstated.

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 core action and side effects in tight sentences with no filler. The opening clause ('Milanote: Note card with text, placed on a board') lightly restates the name/title, which is the only mild redundancy.

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 create tool with no output schema, the description covers the key agent-facing concerns: reversibility, quota impact, notification behavior, and auth requirements. Only text formatting capabilities are unmentioned, a minor gap.

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% with both parameters documented ('Note text', 'Board ID from list_boards or the board URL'). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (adds) and resource (note card) with placement context ('placed on a board') and the side effect ('returns its ID'). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like milanote_add_link, milanote_add_comment, and milanote_add_todo_list by resource type.

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 'runs without asking' line implies this is safe to invoke without confirmation, which is useful invocation guidance. However, it never explicitly states when to select this over add_link/add_comment/add_todo_list, nor any exclusion conditions, leaving routing to inference from the resource name.

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