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

Adds genuine context beyond the annotations: the write hits the live account, the note exists in a preliminary draft state pending practitioner review, and the author must be a practitioner at a clinic. It doesn't say what gets returned or whether the draft can be edited/deleted afterwards, which is the remaining 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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the most important facts (live write, draft state). The trailing 'POST /main/DocumentReference' is protocol detail with little use to an agent, a minor bit of waste.

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 4-param mutation with no output schema, the description covers safety profile, write target, draft lifecycle and author constraints. The one omission is that with no output schema, nothing tells the agent what the call returns (e.g., a document ID), which would matter for follow-up steps.

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%, so baseline is 3; the description adds value by clarifying the author semantics ('PractitionerRole (practitioner at a clinic)') for practitioner_role_id and by stating 'Only HTML text is supported' for the body. It doesn't clarify the title's role or length constraints, but the schema covers those.

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 concrete verb and resource ('Adds a clinical note to a patient's record') with the key qualifier that the note is created as a DRAFT rather than published. No sibling tool creates clinical notes, so the distinction is unambiguous without further differentiation.

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 context for use — the practitioner must review and publish the note in Halaxy afterwards — and constrains authorship to a PractitionerRole. It doesn't state exclusions or prerequisites explicitly, but there is no competing sibling that would require routing guidance.

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