Create note

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

Beyond the annotations (non-read-only, non-idempotent), the description adds valuable behavioral context: notes 'appear in Clio's matter timeline and survive indefinitely,' indicating persistence and visibility. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

The description is two sentences, highly concise, and front-loads the core action. Every word adds value, with no filler or redundancy.

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 tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose and usage context but omits return value behavior and details on optional parameters. Adequate but not fully complete.

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?

With 60% schema coverage, the description adds minimal parameter context beyond the schema. It implies that matter_id or contact_id should be used ('on a matter or contact'), but does not clarify if one is required or what happens if both are omitted. The schema already covers subject, detail, and date well.

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 clearly states it 'Creates a note on a matter or contact,' specifying the resource and action. It distinguishes from sibling tools like clio_create_task or clio_create_calendar_entry by focusing on notes and even provides use-case context: 'memorializing client conversations and AI-generated summaries.'

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 description gives clear when-to-use guidance ('appropriate for memorializing client conversations and AI-generated summaries') but does not explicitly mention when not to use or directly compare with sibling tools.

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