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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses two traits — that notes are timestamped and that the operation is confirm-gated — but says nothing about permissions required, persistence/reversibility, or what the preview-only path yields (the schema covers the latter).

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with the core action first and the qualifier and example appended. Zero filler; every clause adds information.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the confirm gate, timestamping, and the use case reasonably. It is thin on permissions, side effects, and confirmation-flow behavior that an agent would otherwise need.

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 only 33% (only 'confirm' is documented), so the description should compensate. It clarifies the note's purpose via example and implies 'id' targets a prospect record, but adds no format or length constraints for the two undocumented required parameters.

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+resource ('Add a timestamped note to a prospect's record') and an illustrative example of note content, which goes beyond restating the name. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like update_prospect_status or create_prospect, though they don't overlap in function.

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 only implied through the example ('e.g. what was discussed on a call'), which suggests the intended scenario. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative tool for related logging needs.

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