keap_create_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the validation constraint (must include title or body) and the allowed enum values for type, which are useful. However, it does not disclose error behavior, permissions, idempotency, or side effects, leaving notable gaps in transparency for a mutation tool.

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?

The description is structured with a clear opening line, an API reference, and an Args list. It is slightly longer than necessary—the API endpoint line could be omitted as it adds little for an agent—but it remains readable and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence serves a purpose, so it earns a 4.

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?

Given the 5-parameter schema with 1 required, the description covers all parameters with additional context and includes a validation rule. The presence of an output schema covers return values. The combination of description and schema provides a complete picture for correct invocation, making this a well-rounded tool definition.

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 0%, so the description's Args list is essential. It explains each parameter, including the required contact_id, the meaning of user_id, and the allowed values for type. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions and adds significant value beyond the field titles.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('Create a note on a contact') with a specific resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like keap_list_notes (list vs create) and keap_create_task (task vs note). The additional validation rule about requiring at least a title or body further clarifies the tool's exact purpose.

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 description provides a clear context for creating a note and gives a prerequisite ('Must include at least a title or body'). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the sibling tools are distinct CRUD operations and the purpose is clear enough to guide selection. This is clear context with no explicit exclusions, warranting a 4.

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