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

Annotations already declare the write, non-idempotent, non-destructive, open-world profile. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the text accepts simple HTML, the call returns the created note, and it maps to POST /api/notes. It does not mention duplicate-creation risk or any rate limits, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 clauses, front-loaded with the WRITE marker and the core action. Every sentence carries information: scope, HTML support, return value, endpoint. No 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?

With no output schema, stating "Returns the note" is helpful, and all parameters are covered by the schema. What's missing is any hint about relationships to sibling tools (e.g., looking up a client_id first), which would round out the picture for an agent.

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, including the HTML allowance and the job attachment. The description only echoes that information and adds no format or default guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 client") plus the optional job attachment and the underlying endpoint. No sibling tool in the list creates notes, so the agent can immediately route here for note creation.

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 "WRITE:" prefix and the mention of optional job attachment imply when this tool applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no alternatives are named. For a create-only tool with obvious scope, implied usage is adequate but thin.

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