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

Adds behavioral facts the annotations cannot express: every call without a key creates a new note, and a repeated key guarantees deduplication with a returned 'aangemaakt: false'. This is consistent with idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false and even hints at the response shape despite there being no output schema.

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 with the entity scoping and the id-requirement front-loaded, followed by the idempotency contract. Nothing repeats the schema and every sentence carries decision-relevant 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 7-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical risks: duplicate creation and the at-least-one-id rule. It leaves open what happens when multiple ids are supplied simultaneously and what permissions are needed, which prevents a full 5.

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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: the cross-field constraint that at least one of contact_id/bedrijf_id/deal_id must be present (the schema does not enforce this), and how idempotentie_sleutel should be chosen and reused across retries.

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 concrete verb and resource ('Voeg een notitie toe') plus the target entities (contact, bedrijf, deal) and a hard scoping constraint ('minstens één id'). It is unambiguous and no sibling tool adds notes, but it does not explicitly position itself against any sibling, which keeps it just below a 5.

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?

Gives actionable when-to guidance for the idempotency key: omit it for a fire-and-forget note, supply a stable key and reuse it on retry to avoid duplicates. It does not state any when-not-to-use condition or prerequisites (permissions, max text length), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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