create_contact_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does supply the required `contact_notes:write` permission and the HTTP endpoint, which are genuinely useful behavioral facts. However, it says nothing about what the call returns, whether duplicate notes are permitted, how the note is attributed, or failure modes for a missing contact id.

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?

Four short lines, front-loaded with the action, followed by the permission and endpoint. The only mild redundancy is restating the tool name as the first line, but nothing here is wasted.

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?

This is a simple two-parameter create tool with fully documented parameters and no output schema, so the description covers the essentials (action, auth, endpoint). It stops short of explaining the response or edge cases, which would be needed to reach a 4 or 5 for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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%, with both `id` (path parameter) and `note` (body content) documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax, format, or length information beyond the schema, so the 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?

The description gives a clear verb+resource ('Create Contact Note') and reinforces it with the concrete endpoint POST /api/v1/contacts/{id}/notes, so the agent knows exactly what is created and under which parent resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings such as create_contact or get_contact_notes, leaving that inference to the model.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites beyond the permission string, and no mention of alternatives such as get_contact_notes or delete_contact_note. The agent must infer that this is the write counterpart to those read/delete tools.

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