Add note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the important traits that this is a write operation and that a preview/confirm handshake is involved. However, it omits permissions/authentication needs, whether notes are immutable or editable, and what the preview returns, so the disclosure is partial.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and target before the workflow caveat. No filler and nothing redundant.

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 six-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers the essential two-step flow but leaves gaps an agent must guess at: mutual exclusivity of matter_id/contact_id, the date format, and what the preview call returns. Adequate but incomplete.

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 only 17% (six parameters, one described), so the description must compensate and only partly does: it maps 'subject + text' to subject/detail and hints at matter vs contact targeting. It never clarifies that exactly one of matter_id/contact_id is needed, nor explains the date pattern or the preview-token mechanics for confirm.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Adds a note') and scopes the target to 'a matter or a contact', plus the payload fields (subject + text). It is clearly distinguishable from the read-side sibling clio_notes_list, though it does not name that sibling explicitly.

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?

Gives actionable workflow guidance: 'Write operation – preview first, then confirm with the token from the preview,' which tells the agent how to sequence calls. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating exclusions (e.g., when to prefer clio_communication_log instead), so it is clear context without routing.

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