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

Annotations declare non-idempotent, destructive, and open-world, and the description reinforces this with the concrete consequence: repeated calls accumulate notes and notifications. It also discloses an auth trait the annotations cannot express — local WordPress authentication with no WooCommerce REST API keys needed. It stops short of saying what the response contains or whether notes can be removed.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and its notification effect. The internal-implementation aside about mirroring woocommerce-mcp-server earns its place by explaining the auth model, though it is the softest sentence in the block.

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?

A mutation tool with a nested free-form payload and no output schema needs more than this: the description never names the other note fields accepted in noteData, nor what the call returns. The auth and idempotency details are covered well, so the gap is confined to the payload shape.

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?

Top-level schema coverage is 100%, so site_id and orderId are fully documented, but noteData is an opaque object with empty properties and additionalProperties=true. The description adds only one concrete field name, customer_note, leaving the rest of the note payload undocumented in both schema and prose.

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 ('Creates a note for a WooCommerce order'), which cleanly separates it from wc_get_order_note and wc_delete_order_note. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the create/get/delete triad is unambiguous.

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?

'A customer_note can notify the customer' implies the condition under which a note triggers notification, and 'Repeated calls can create additional notes and notifications' implies when not to call twice. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no named alternative, and no prerequisites beyond an implicit site_id requirement.

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