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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write/safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context — the note is visible to the team on the record and hits POST /notes — but says nothing about whether notes can be edited later or what a repeat call does, and the 'WRITE:' prefix merely restates the annotation.

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, front-loaded with the write intent and the target resource; every clause carries information and there is no padding.

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?

All three required parameters are covered by the schema, the target object types are enumerated, and no output schema exists so return values need no explanation. It stops short of telling the agent where to get a valid target_id or what to expect on success.

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 all three parameters are documented with an enum for target_type, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'contact, account or deal' loosely mirrors the enum but adds no format, length, or ID-resolution detail beyond the schema.

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 and resource — 'add a note to a contact, account or deal' — so the agent knows exactly what is created and where it attaches. It is clearly distinct from the create_account/contact/deal siblings, though it never names update_note or explains the split from it.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as freshsales_update_note or freshsales_create_task. Usage is only inferable from the phrase 'add a note ... on the record'; no exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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