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

Annotations already declare this is a non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world write. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the note is internal-only and 'never sent to the client,' which prevents confusion with a messaging tool, and it states the 'Editor or above' authorization requirement. It stops short of describing what the call returns or whether notes can later be edited or removed.

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 fragments, front-loaded with the core purpose and with no filler. The telegraphic style means the permission clause reads as an afterthought, but nothing is wasted and no sentence needs cutting.

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 simple four-parameter create tool with no output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the essentials: what gets created, where it attaches, who can see it, and the permission floor. Return shape and post-creation editability are the only meaningful gaps.

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 50%, with workspace_id and deal_id documented in-schema but contact_id and text undocumented. The description adds meaning only for deal_id by flagging it as optional and deal-scoped; it says nothing about text (length bounds live in the schema) or contact_id. Baseline 3 is appropriate given partial coverage.

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?

Names the resource (a note) and its attachment points — the client's card, plus an optional deal — which is more specific than the tool name alone. It implicitly separates itself from dosai_add_conversation_note by scoping to the contact card, but never names that sibling or the contact-vs-conversation distinction explicitly. The leading noun phrase ('A note on...') is slightly weaker than an imperative verb.

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 parenthetical '(and on a deal, if given)' tells the agent the deal path is optional, and 'Editor or above' sets a permission floor. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus dosai_add_conversation_note or dosai_update_contact, and no stated exclusions. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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