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

Annotations already mark this as a non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, closed-world write. The description adds meaningful behavior: the write replaces the existing note while the previous one is retained as a revision (explaining why destructiveHint=false), and that only a signed-in person can write it. This is real context beyond the 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 purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and the three short sentences carry replacement, revision, and auth facts without filler. The phrasing 'a person's note for people' is slightly awkward but not wasteful.

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 2-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers the mutation semantics (replace + revision retention) and the auth requirement. It is close to complete, with only the note's content expectations left to inference.

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%: contact_id is documented ('The contact's id') but the note parameter has no schema description. The description partially compensates by framing what the note is (a person's note read by tommo runs), but it adds no format, length, or content guidance.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('write the note on a lead') and clarifies what that note is (a person's note read by tommo runs before the record). This distinguishes it from siblings like write_a_playbook_page and write_to_a_tommo_on_a_deal, though it never names those siblings 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?

The description explains the semantics of writing but gives no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative conditions. An agent has to infer that this is the tool for attaching a note to a lead rather than, say, write_to_a_tommo_on_a_deal.

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