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

Annotations only supply destructiveHint=true and a title, so the description usefully adds the visibility scope (internal, staff-only, not client-facing), which is real behavioral context an agent needs. However, it does not explain the destructiveHint on what is nominally a create operation, nor mention auth/permission requirements, leaving a notable gap.

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 tight sentences: purpose and visibility first, GraphQL mapping second. No filler, nothing repeated from the schema, and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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 two-parameter create tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, target resource, and visibility adequately. It stops short of stating where the note surfaces or whether it is editable/deletable, but nothing critical to invoking it 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% – both client_id (with its urn:blvd:Client:<uuid> format) and text are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond that, 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+resource ("Add an internal note to a client's profile") and disambiguates itself from note-like siblings such as boulevard_add_tag by specifying the target (client profile) and the nature of the content. The GraphQL operation name is a bonus that makes the action 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 examples ("formulas, preferences, allergies") and the "visible to staff" qualifier imply when a note is appropriate, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or routing to alternatives such as boulevard_update_client or boulevard_add_tag.

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