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

Annotations provide only destructiveHint=true and a title, so the description carries most of the burden. It usefully discloses that the note is internal (not customer-facing) and exposes the backing endpoint POST /api/4/notes, but says nothing about permissions, failure modes, or whether notes are editable/deletable afterwards. Note the mild tension: "attach" reads as additive while the annotation flags destructive behavior, though this is not an explicit contradiction.

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 tightly written sentences: purpose first, endpoint second, zero filler. Nothing could be trimmed without losing information.

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 3-parameter create with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does and where it writes. It stops short of stating visibility guarantees or the create-vs-list relationship, but nothing critical for a correct call is missing.

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%, so body, owner_id and owner_type are already documented. The description's loose list of owner types adds only marginal color beyond the enum already present in the schema, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Attach an internal note") and enumerates the record types it can attach to, which matches the owner_type enum. It implicitly contrasts with the sibling booqable_list_notes, but never names it or any other sibling, so differentiation is left to inference.

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 guidance on when to use this versus booqable_list_notes or the update/create siblings, no prerequisites (e.g., the owner record must already exist), and no exclusions. Usage is only implied by the verb.

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