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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value beyond them: 'Adds only; nothing is edited or sent to the customer' discloses append-only semantics and that no customer notification fires — behavior an agent could not infer from the hints.

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 short clauses plus the endpoint. The WRITE marker and the mutation scope are front-loaded, and every phrase carries information (append-only, optional linkage, target endpoint). Zero 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?

For a 4-parameter mutation with no output schema, the definition covers action, scope, optional linkage, append-only behavior and the REST target; annotations carry the safety profile. The only omission is what comes back on success (e.g., the created note id), which is minor for a write tool.

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 50%: content and customer_id are documented in the schema, while visit_id and location_id are bare. The description partially compensates by labeling visit and location as optional ('optionally tied to a visit and location'), clarifying the two undocumented fields' role and optionality, but adds no format or constraint details. Baseline 3.

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?

Starts with the explicit verb+resource ('WRITE: add one staff note to a customer's record') and immediately scopes it with 'optionally tied to a visit and location'. It is trivially distinguishable from the sibling waitwhile_list_customer_notes, which reads rather than appends.

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?

Usage is implied by 'WRITE: add one staff note' and the append-only framing, but no sibling is named as an alternative and no precondition (e.g., when to attach a visit_id vs. omit it) is stated. Adequate context, no exclusions.

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