note_create_in_org

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals only that the tool creates a note and that org_id targets the destination org; it does not disclose permission requirements, whether org_id is mandatory, side effects, or response/error behavior.

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 tight sentences with the core operation and scope first, followed by the critical parameter clarification. Every sentence earns its place and no filler is present.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this is thin. It omits return value, error behavior, required auth, and how this tool relates to note_create or note_create_limited, leaving an agent without enough context to invoke it confidently beyond simple cases.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning only for org_id ('targets the destination org'); token, title, and body are left to inference, and the description does not resolve whether org_id is required even though the schema marks it optional.

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 action—create a note—and a precise scope: inside a specific organization, with cross-team collaboration intent. It also clarifies that org_id targets the destination org, distinguishing this from generic note_create siblings even without naming them.

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 gives a clear context ('inside a specific organization', 'cross-team collaboration') that tells an agent when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly name note_create as the alternative or exclude cases where organization targeting is not needed, so it stops one step short of full routing guidance.

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