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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true). The description adds real context on top: who sees a note, that it is undone by editing rather than a delete, that no confirmation is required, and the Cotlet API key with app access needed to call it. The sentence 'It reaches no one' is muddy and sits oddly next to 'goes on the work orders sent to cleaners,' but it does not contradict 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 well with the action and targets, but the second sentence restates the first ('Adds an Appointment Note or a Customer Note'), and the 'It reaches no one and is undone by editing the note, so it does not ask for your OK' clause is convoluted and forces re-reading for a minor point.

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 still covers audience semantics, authentication requirement, and reversibility, and all four parameters are documented in the schema. What it lacks is any hint of the return value or how the created note is identified afterwards, which is a minor gap for a create-note tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by giving the semantics of the visibility enum (public = on work orders to cleaners, private = owners/office managers only), which the one-line schema description ('public or private. Default: public.') does not convey on its own.

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) plus its two targets (appointment or contact) and both note classes (Appointment Note / Customer Note). An agent can tell this apart from read tools like zenmaid_get_appointment or zenmaid_list_contacts immediately, and 'as in ZenMaid' anchors it to the domain vocabulary.

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 description explains the consequence of the visibility choice (public goes on cleaner work orders, private is owners/office managers only), which implicitly guides when to pick each. However it never states when to use this tool versus sibling actions such as zenmaid_send_message or zenmaid_create_appointment, and gives no prerequisites beyond the API key.

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