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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-redundant context: the note is internal and does not notify the contact, and duplicate calls produce duplicate records (concretizing idempotentHint=false). It does not mention auth/permission requirements, but for a non-destructive append this is a solid additive disclosure.

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 plus an endpoint, with the critical 'WRITE:' marker and resource scope front-loaded and zero filler. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to infer.

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 schema-documented and the description supplies the behavioral gaps an agent needs before writing. The only omission is what the call returns (note id/shape), which matters slightly more here because no output schema exists, but the tool has no side effects on the contact record itself, so the gap is minor.

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%, with text, entity_id and the entity_type enum all documented in the schema itself. The description only echoes that the note attaches to a contact or deal, which maps to entity_type but adds no format, length, or ID-syntax guidance beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (add) and resource (note) plus the two supported targets (contact or deal timeline), and prefixes with 'WRITE:' so the mutation nature is unmistakable against siblings like revampcrm_get_note or revampcrm_create_deal. An agent can distinguish this from the read-side note tool without opening either schema.

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?

Clarifies the semantic intent of the resource — an internal note, nothing sent to the contact — which is exactly the distinction an agent needs to choose this over any outward-facing communication. It also warns that calling twice creates two notes, an actionable usage caveat. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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