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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and 'confirm first' on delete is consistent with that rather than a contradiction. The description does not say whether deletes are permanent, whether update replaces or merges fields, or what gets returned, so it adds only modest 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and then the actions; nothing is padded. The terseness borders on under-specification but no sentence is wasted.

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?

This is a destructive multi-action mutation tool with six parameters, a third of them undocumented, and no output schema. Missing are the parent-id exclusivity rule, the permanence of delete, and update semantics — all of which the agent must know to call it correctly.

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 only 33%, and the description partially compensates by tying body and the three parent ids to create. It never explains whether one or multiple parent ids may be supplied, nor that id is needed for update/delete (that only appears in the schema text).

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 names the resource (notes) plus the entities they attach to (contact, company, deal) and enumerates the three actions create/update/delete. That is enough to place it against notes_list, though it never explicitly says 'this is the write counterpart to notes_list'.

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?

'delete (confirm first)' gives one concrete procedural cue, and the create parenthetical implies you supply a parent id alongside body. There is no stated boundary against notes_list, and no guidance on when to use update versus delete-and-recreate or on choosing among contactId/companyId/dealId.

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