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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, yet the description adds genuinely new context: the comment is visible to the lead's team but sends nothing to the customer, and it names the underlying POST endpoint. "Not idempotent" merely restates the annotation, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 tight sentences with the "WRITE:" marker front-loaded so an agent knows the mutation class immediately. No sentence is filler; each adds audience, optionality, or idempotency 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 write tool with no output schema, the description covers what is created, who can see it, optional typing and non-idempotency. It stops short of saying what the call returns (e.g., the created comment id), which would matter for follow-up calls.

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 lead_id, content (1–20000 chars) and activity_id with a pointer to nocrm_list_activities. The description only echoes that activity typing is optional and never explains the valid activity_id source or content formatting beyond the schema, so the 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 comment ... to a lead") and clarifies the nature of the resource ("an internal note"), which cleanly separates it from the sibling nocrm_list_lead_comments by verb. The optional activity-typing is also disclosed up front.

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 implies when to reach for it (posting an internal note the team should see, possibly typed as a call or meeting), but it never explicitly contrasts with nocrm_list_lead_comments or other lead-mutation siblings like nocrm_update_lead. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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