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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent operation. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: the 10,000-character cap and the fact that the operation is free. However, it does not clarify whether notes are appended to existing notes, who can see them, or what permissions are required.

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 compact clauses with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The length constraint and cost note are both useful and efficiently placed.

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 simple two-parameter mutation with annotations and a fully described schema, the description covers the action, size limit, and cost. It is still missing important operational context such as whether the note is appended or replaces anything, what permissions are needed, and what the call returns.

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%, and the schema already documents both prospect_id and body, including the 10,000-character maximum. The description repeats the length cap but adds no additional parameter meaning such as ID format expectations or note-body formatting rules, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: it adds a note to a prospect. That is enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like dealmachine_prospect_update or dealmachine_prospect_tags_set, though it does not explicitly name or contrast those 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?

The only usage-relevant information is the word "Free", which hints at cost but does not explain when to use this note tool versus updating a prospect, setting tags, or adding the prospect itself. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-tool guidance.

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