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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=true; the description adds that this is a write and explains the customer-visible effect of `public`. It does not state auth/permission requirements, whether the note can be edited or removed, or what a successful call returns, so it partially compensates for thin annotations but leaves real gaps.

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 clauses, front-loaded with the operation and mutation type, with no filler. The trailing endpoint string adds minor debugging value but is arguably redundant, keeping it just short of a 5.

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 3-parameter write tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, mutation nature, and the key visibility flag. The main omission is any notion of the return value or confirmation of success, which is acceptable given the tool's simplicity.

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 three parameters are already documented, and the description's explanation of `public` merely restates the schema text. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 to a customer') and the WRITE prefix immediately signals a mutation. The 'customer' resource clearly differentiates it from the sibling kickserv_add_job_note, so an agent can route correctly without opening the 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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance is given. The WRITE label implies a mutation context, but nothing tells the agent when to choose this over kickserv_add_job_note or how it relates to kickserv_list_customer_notes.

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