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

The description's framing as "additive" conflicts with the annotation destructiveHint: true — under MCP semantics, an additive tool is exactly the case where destructiveHint should be false. The description does add some behavior (required content, optional attachments), but its safety framing directly contradicts the structured annotation.

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 with the purpose front-loaded before the parameter list and GraphQL mapping. Every clause carries information; nothing is padded.

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 create tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, required vs optional inputs, and the underlying GraphQL mutation. The main gap is the undermined safety context, but operationally an agent has what it needs to call it.

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 all five parameters are already documented with types and meaning. The description mainly restates them (content as text, user_id as client, due_date, priority, created_by_id) and adds the required/optional grouping, which is marginal value beyond the schema — the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

"Creates a task in Healthie" gives a specific verb + resource, and the parenthetical "(additive)" distinguishes it from update/delete operations. It does not explicitly name list_tasks or create_note, but the create-vs-list and task-vs-note distinction is inherent enough for an agent to route correctly.

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 description conveys implied usage by enumerating what is required (content) versus optional (user_id, due_date, priority, created_by_id). However, it never states when to reach for this tool over a sibling, nor any when-not condition or prerequisite, so guidance stops short of being explicit.

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