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

The annotation only supplies destructiveHint=true, so the description does add real context: it marks the operation as a write and explains that `public` controls customer visibility, a privacy-relevant consequence. It still omits auth requirements, whether the note can later be edited/removed, and why an additive operation is flagged destructive.

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?

Three short sentences, mutation intent front-loaded, no padding. The REST endpoint ('POST /{account}/customers/{customer_number}/notes.xml') is marginally useful for debugging but borders on redundant with the tool name.

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 three-parameter write tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, the one non-obvious flag, and the endpoint. Only auth/permission context and the note lifecycle are missing, which is minor at this complexity.

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 all three parameters are already documented in the schema. The description's restatement of the `public` flag ('visible to the customer') duplicates the schema text rather than adding format, default, or edge-case detail. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 a note to a customer') and prefixes it with 'WRITE', so the mutation intent is unmistakable. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling kickserv_add_job_note, leaving the agent to infer the target-object difference.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of the sibling add_job_note alternative, and no prerequisites (e.g. that the customer must exist). The agent must infer usage purely from the name and the 'WRITE' prefix.

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