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

Beyond the destructiveHint=false annotation, it adds meaningful behavior: the note is attached to the timeline, attributed to the authenticated user, and synced to connected CRMs. These are real side effects an agent should know.

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?

Three short sentences, no filler; the core operation is front-loadedentukan and each subsequent sentence adds a distinct fact. Excellent efficiency.

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 low-complexity, non-destructive action, the description explains the target, identification method, attribution, and sync side effects. It doesn't describe return/error details, but there is no output schema to clarify anyway.

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 high; the description mostly restates the lookup alternatives already present in the parameter docs. It doesn't add new meaning to the content parameter beyond what the schema says.

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 names the operation ('Add a note'), the target ('a lead's timeline'), and the lookup options (lead_id or phone_number). It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like add_tag, though it does not explicitly name the alternatives.

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?

It explains how to identify the lead, which is helpful, but it gives no guidance on when to prefer this over siblings like add_tag, add_to_sequence, or schedule_sms, nor any exclusions or conditions.

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