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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows the safety profile. The description adds the 'WRITE:' intent marker and the underlying endpoint (POST /notes.json), but says nothing about permissions/scope requirements, whether the created note is returned, or error behavior when the id is missing.

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 dense sentences with the action verb front-loaded and the branching rule immediately after. Nothing is wasted and no sentence is filler.

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 straightforward create operation with fully described parameters and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly sufficient. The only real gap is that no output schema exists and the description never says what a successful call returns, though the 'fields' parameter implies a note object comes back.

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% across all 7 parameters, so the schema already documents type, detail, date, subject, fields, and the conditional id fields. The description's contribution is restating the conditional type→id pairing in one compact rule, which is useful but largely duplicative of the schema's own per-field descriptions.

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 ('Add a note') and immediately disambiguates the two target modes with the exact parameter pairing required for each (type Matter + matter_id / type Contact + contact_id). An agent can distinguish this from clio_list_notes or clio_create_task without opening any schema.

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?

Gives clear conditional guidance for choosing the matter vs. contact variant, which is the main decision point for this tool. It does not mention read-side alternatives or exclusions, but the selection context is unambiguous.

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