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

Annotations supply only destructiveHint=true, so the description must carry the rest of the burden. It confirms the write nature ('WRITE') and the underlying endpoint, but discloses nothing about what the mutation affects, whether it can be undone, or what confirmation is returned.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the WRITE marker and resource lead. It is terse to the point of omitting anything else useful, but nothing present is wasteful.

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 low-complexity three-param write with full schema coverage and no output schema, the essentials are present. However, with only a destructiveHint annotation, the description leaves auth requirements and success behavior unexplained.

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% with all three params documented in-schema, including the useful 'API Id, not AccountNumber' distinction, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that.

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+resource ('add a note to a constituent's record'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like bloomerang_create_interaction, bloomerang_create_task, and bloomerang_list_notes. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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 says what the tool does but gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and never mentions the alternative write tools (interaction, task) an agent might confuse it with. Usage is only implied by the resource name.

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