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

Annotations supply destructiveHint=true and a title, so the safety bar is partly carried already. The description adds genuinely useful context by marking the note as 'internal' (visibility semantics not in the schema) and mapping to POST /api/4/notes, but it says nothing about permissions, whether notes can be edited/deleted later, or why a note-creation call is flagged destructive.

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 sentences, with the purpose front-loaded and no wasted clauses. The trailing 'Booqable: POST /api/4/notes.' is close to filler, though it does give an API endpoint mapping an agent could use.

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 simple three-parameter create tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is created, where it attaches, and that it is internal. It omits what the call returns and any permission/visibility caveats, leaving it adequate but not fully self-sufficient.

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%, with each of the three required parameters (body, owner_id, owner_type) already documented in the schema and owner_type fully enumerated. The description adds nothing beyond a loose restatement of the owner types, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Attach an internal note') and enumerates valid targets (customer, order, product, other record), which is enough to distinguish it from the read-side sibling booqable_list_notes. It stops short of explicitly naming that sibling as the alternative, so it is clear but not sibling-differentiating.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the obvious alternative (booqable_list_notes) or of which record types are appropriate. The word 'internal' hints at intent but the description never states the conditions under which a note should be created.

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