Add note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the write permission requirement but omits other behavioral details such as idempotency, error handling, or whether duplicate notes are allowed. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient transparency.

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 consists of two concise, front-loaded sentences. The first sentence states the action and targets, the second adds a usage guideline and requirement. Every sentence is essential, and there is no extraneous content.

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 no output schema, the description should ideally mention the return value (e.g., note ID). It covers the required environment variable and entity types, but omits side effects and what the tool returns. For a simple creation tool, it is adequate but has a clear gap in return value specification.

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 does not add meaningful information beyond the schema—it reiterates the purpose but does not clarify parameter relationships or constraints. No additional semantic value is provided.

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 specifies the action ('Attach a free-text Note') and explicitly lists the supported entity types (contact, contribution, activity, case, relationship). It clearly distinguishes this tool as the one for adding unstructured notes among sibling tools, none of which serve the same 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 states when to use notes ('unstructured context that doesn't belong in a custom field') and mentions the environment variable requirement (CIVICRM_ALLOW_WRITES=true). It provides context but does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use, though the guidance is clear enough.

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