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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-redundant behavior: the note is permanently uneditable and undeletable through this toolset, plus the underlying POST /events endpoint, which pairs with the non-idempotent hint. It stops short of saying whether the target entities must exist or what happens on invalid IDs.

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 sentences with the WRITE flag and the primary purpose front-loaded, followed immediately by the durability constraint. No filler, no restated schema fields.

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 write tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the essentials: what it does, that it is a POST, and that it is irreversible. The one gap is the mismatch between required parameters (text only) and the description's 'one or more' targets, leaving the minimum valid call ambiguous.

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 every parameter including text and the three id arrays is already documented, making 3 the baseline. The phrase 'one or more leads, companies or deals' adds the useful nuance that multiple entities across types can be targeted in a single call, but the schema also permits zero targets (only text is required), which the description does not clarify.

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 a note') and the resources it attaches to (leads, companies, deals), and marks it as a write up front, so an agent can place it immediately. It does not address how it differs from the sibling teamgate_create_activity, which posts to the same underlying events resource, so sibling differentiation is only partial.

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 note's irreversibility ('cannot be edited or removed with these tools') implicitly tells the agent this is for one-shot annotations rather than tracked work, which weakly guides usage. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus teamgate_create_activity, and no statement of prerequisites such as needing at least one linked entity.

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