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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description reinforces the write nature with 'Writes to the donor record' plus the POST endpoint. However, it does not explain what the destructive hint means in practice for an additive note, nor mention permissions, validation against contact_id, or effects on the contact record. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate but thin.

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, front-loaded with the purpose and usefully capped by the underlying API mapping (POST /api/ContactNote). Nearly zero waste; the endpoint line is the only mildly implementation-flavored sentence, but it is genuinely useful for agents mapping to the Virtuous API.

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 7-parameter creation tool with full schema coverage, no output schema, and one annotation, the description supplies purpose, write semantics, and endpoint mapping. It lacks only failure/prerequisite details (e.g., the referenced contact must exist), which is a minor gap given the schema does the parameter work.

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 all seven parameters (note, type, private, important, contact_id, time_spent, note_date_time) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so 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 to a contact's timeline' — with concrete examples of what a note represents (call, meeting, visit, touchpoint). The resource is clearly distinct from siblings such as virtuous_add_contact_tag or virtuous_create_contact_transaction, so an agent can route without opening the 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?

The examples (call, meeting, visit, touchpoint) imply the appropriate use case for logging activity history, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no alternative named (e.g., use virtuous_list_contact_notes to read notes back). Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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