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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds genuinely new context: the note does not reach the client and runs without a confirmation prompt, plus the auth requirement ('Needs the user's Cotlet API key with access to this app'). That auth and no-confirmation disclosure goes beyond the structured fields.

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?

Short and front-loaded with the core action first, followed by the side-effect and auth notes. Minor redundancy in restating the action twice ('Add a note to a job. Adds a text note to one job.') keeps it from a 5.

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 two-parameter, no-output-schema mutation tool with annotations already covering the safety profile, the description supplies the missing pieces an agent needs: target scope (one job), no client notification, no confirmation, and auth requirement. Return values are unnecessary given the absence of an output schema.

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% (note text, job_id referenced from list_jobs), so the schema already carries the parameter meaning. The description adds nothing about either parameter, matching the baseline 3 for fully documented schemas.

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 ('Add a note to a job', 'Adds a text note to one job') so the agent knows exactly what the tool does and that it targets a single job. It doesn't name or differentiate from any sibling, but no other service-autopilot sibling adds notes, so ambiguity risk is low.

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 reaches no client' implies a boundary (this won't contact the customer, unlike send_text), but the description never states when to use this tool versus alternatives or names an alternative. The usage context is only faintly implied.

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