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

Beyond the annotations (write, destructive, non-idempotent, open-world), the description adds real behavioral detail: no e-mail/SMS reaches the contact, the only mail is the assignee reminder when remind_at is set, the new task id is returned, and the endpoint is POST /tasks. These side-effect disclosures are exactly what an agent needs for a mutation tool.

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?

Front-loaded with 'WRITE:' as a mode flag, then purpose, then parameter guidance, then side effects and return value. Dense but every sentence carries independent information with no 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?

Despite 13 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the three kinds, the linking targets, the side-effect mail behavior, and the return value ('the new task id'). Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 the baseline is 3 and the schema already documents each field. The description still adds value by explaining that note_type_id is the activity type id and cross-referencing propstack_get_reference_data activity_types, plus the requirement that it match the chosen kind.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource ('WRITE: create a note, a to-do ... or an appointment in Propstack') and enumerates the three variants an agent must distinguish. This clearly separates it from propstack_update_task and the read/get siblings without needing schema inspection.

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?

It states when each variant applies (note = plain, to-do = due date, appointment = start/end), which is genuine usage context, and clarifies that no external message goes to the contact. It stops short of an explicit 'use this vs propstack_update_task' routing statement, so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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