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

Annotations only expose destructiveHint=true, so the description carries most of the burden. It usefully signals the write nature and the POST endpoint, but it does not state whether notes can later be modified or removed, whether external_id changes idempotency/dedup behavior, or any permission requirements.

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?

Front-loads the WRITE marker and requirement facts in one dense sentence, then closes with the endpoint. No filler text, though the raw endpoint path is marginal value for an agent.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and thin annotations, the description covers required fields and type resolution but omits the purpose of external_id and the behavioral/safety details of creating a note. Adequate to invoke correctly, but not fully complete.

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 coverage is 67%, and the description compensates by confirming text and original_date as required and clarifying the id-vs-name duality for note type, which is the main ambiguity in the schema (note_type_id vs note_type_name). It leaves external_id unexplained, but adds real meaning beyond the schema for the key 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?

Starts with an explicit operation marker ('WRITE: add a note to a constituent's record'), naming both the verb and the target resource. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings such as lgl_list_constituent_notes and lgl_update_constituent, and it even names the underlying endpoint.

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?

Explains the note-type resolution path (by id or name, e.g. 'General') and routes the agent to lgl_list_type_values with type=note_types for valid values. It gives clear context for how to supply types but does not state when to prefer this tool over listing/updating notes.

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