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

Annotations cover the safety profile (not read-only, open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds real behavioral context on top: it discloses that the call creates a note with a fixed structure (summary, confirm questions, live-flow link) and that a missing connection produces an error directing the user to Wavelength settings. It does not warn that repeated calls create duplicate notes, which is the main non-idempotent risk.

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 tightly written sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded before the error-handling caveat. Every sentence earns its place.

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 write tool with full parameter coverage and no output schema, the description covers what is created, where it lands, and the failure mode. It could mention whether anything identifying (note id, Salesforce URL) is returned, but this is a minor gap.

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 100%, so all four parameters are already documented, and the description adds little parameter-level detail beyond noting the flow link is appended to the summary. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb (attach) and resource (a flow, as a note on a Salesforce opportunity or account) and even enumerates the note's contents. It is clearly differentiated from its send_flow_to_* siblings by naming Salesforce as the target, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with attach_flow_to_crm or the other CRM-routing tools.

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?

Usage is implied by the target platform rather than stated: the agent can infer 'use this to send a flow to Salesforce.' There is no explicit when/when-not guidance and no pointer to the alternative tool (attach_flow_to_crm) or to find_salesforce_records as the prerequisite for record_id, even though the schema references it.

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