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

Annotations only give the generic safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true). The description adds substantial context beyond them: it returns each task ID, due dates trigger reminders via email/phone/browser push according to user settings, no one is notified on creation, undo is by dragging to trash, and a Cotlet API key with app access is required.

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?

It is front-loaded with the core action and remains reasonably tight. Some sentences, such as the notification-mechanism detail and the trash-undo instruction, are longer than strictly necessary but still earn their place by clarifying side effects.

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 no output schema, the description carries the full burden and does so: it explains the return (each task ID), side effects (reminders, no creation notifications), reversibility (trash), and auth requirements. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 the parameter formats are already documented. The description adds meaning beyond schema by explaining the consequence of due_date (a reminder is sent) and noting each task can carry an optional due date, which the schema alone doesn't convey.

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 description states a specific verb and resource: 'Creates one to-do list with all its tasks and returns each task ID.' This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like milanote_add_note, milanote_add_link, and milanote_add_comment, which create different card types.

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?

It hints at behavior ('runs without asking') that helps an agent decide to invoke it freely, but never states when to use this versus alternatives like add_note or add_link. Usage is implied via the card type rather than routed explicitly.

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