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

The description adds the concrete backing endpoint (POST /<Object>/{id}/Notes), which is useful behavioral context beyond the single destructiveHint annotation. However it is silent on permissions/scopes needed, whether the record id must already exist, and whether repeated notes are permitted or deduplicated — a gap for a mutating call.

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 clauses, front-loaded with the action and the affected entities; nothing is redundant or padded. The endpoint reference is compact and informative.

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 four-parameter, fully schema-documented tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, target entities and endpoint. It leaves the response (e.g. the created note id) and error/permission behavior unstated, which is a minor but real gap given there is no output schema to fall back on.

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 the schema already documents id, title, body (HTML allowed) and the object enum. The description's '(title + body)' only restates schema content and adds no format, length, or constraint detail beyond it. Baseline 3 applies.

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 (title + body)') and enumerates the exact parent record types it can attach to (Contact, Organisation, Lead, Opportunity, Project). No sibling tool deals with notes, so an agent can distinguish this from the create_*/update_* family at a glance.

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 description says what can be attached where, but gives no when-to-use guidance: no mention of prerequisites (e.g. the record must already exist), no note about alternatives such as insightly_create_task or insightly_list_record_activity for related activity. Usage is only implied by the verb.

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