set_client_note

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently signals a write operation but says nothing about permission requirements, behavior on an unknown MAC, persistence, side effects, or that a new note overwrites prior text — the clearing behavior appears only in the schema, not the description. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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?

A single 15-word sentence that front-loads the verb and resource with zero waste. Every phrase ('freeform', 'by MAC') carries semantic weight, and nothing is repeated from the schema.

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?

The tool is simple (2 flat parameters, no output schema) and the schema fully documents the arguments, so an agent can invoke it correctly from the description alone. However, there is no guidance on post-conditions (e.g., the note being readable via get_client_details), failure behavior, or how this setter relates to the many other set_client_* and client-state tools, leaving completeness adequate but not rich.

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 both parameters are already fully documented. The description adds marginal value — 'freeform' clarifies the note is arbitrary text and 'by MAC' confirms the lookup key for the mac parameter — but the schema's 'use empty string to clear' is the more operationally useful detail. The 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 ('Set'), the exact mutated resource ('the freeform note field on a client'), and the addressing method ('by MAC'). It is immediately distinguishable from client-related siblings such as set_client_alias, set_client_user_group, block_client, and get_client_details, which target different attributes or behaviors.

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 explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tools are named. The intended trigger (attaching freeform text to a client record) is inferable from the resource wording and the sibling set, but the description leaves routing entirely to implication and never contrasts this with set_client_alias for labeling or get_client_details for reading.

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