manage_notes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the write-safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the WhatsApp Business account requirement and that 'set' is a write/update (upsert) operation rather than an append, which matches the idempotent hint.

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 sentences plus a two-item action list; the purpose and prerequisite are front-loaded and every line earns its place. No filler or repetition.

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 small 3-parameter mutation tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers the resource, the actions, the precondition, and the required input for 'set'. It could say what 'get' returns when no note exists or confirm that 'set' overwrites, but nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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 the baseline is 3. The description notes that the note text is required for 'set', which merely restates the schema's own 'required for "set" action' note, and it adds no format, length, or contact_id semantics.

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 resource (contact notes) and enumerates both supported actions (get/set) with one-line semantics, so an agent immediately knows what the tool does. It does not name or contrast any sibling (manage_labels, manage_chat) explicitly, but the notes scope is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied through the action list (read vs write a contact note) and the stated prerequisite of a WhatsApp Business account with notes enabled. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over siblings such as get_contact or manage_labels, and no statement of when each action is inappropriate.

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