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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=true; the description usefully adds that the note is staff-visible (not customer-facing) and gives content examples. It does not address permissions, whether the note is editable/deletable afterward, or why the operation carries a destructive hint, leaving a real gap for a mutation.

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?

One tight sentence with the resource and visibility constraint front-loaded, followed by a brief GraphQL mapping. Nothing is redundant, though the GraphQL name is of marginal use to an agent.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema and only a destructiveHint annotation, the description covers the essentials of what it does but omits behavioral details such as required permissions, effect on the existing profile, and any confirmation of success.

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 both client_id and text are already documented with format details. The examples ('formulas, preferences, allergies') clarify what sort of content belongs in text, adding modest value beyond the schema.

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 ('add') and resource ('internal note to a client's profile'), which clearly separates it from sibling readers like get_client or list_clients. It does not explicitly contrast with the other writers (update_client, add_tag), but the purpose 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?

The parenthetical 'visible to staff' implies the note is internal rather than client-facing, which hints at when to use it. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer this over update_client or add_tag, and no prerequisites are stated.

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