create_case_note

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

The description inaccurately states that 'All three fields (note body, subject, date ISO 8601) are required,' but the input schema shows four required fields (case_id, note, subject, date). This factual error misleads the agent about required parameters.

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?

Very short at two sentences, but the second sentence contains an error. Brevity is wasted if it compromises accuracy. Could be more precise while concise.

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 4 required parameters and an output schema (unmentioned), the description is incomplete. It does not describe return values, error scenarios, prerequisites (e.g., case existence), or any behavioral details beyond the incorrect requirement statement.

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 should compensate. However, it only repeats field names and misstates the number of required parameters. It adds no semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., formats, constraints, examples).

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 'Create a note on a case,' specifying the action (create) and resource (note on a case). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like create_client_note, but the context of 'case' is evident.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., update_note, other create tools). No prerequisites mentioned (e.g., case must exist). Does not specify when not to use it.

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