dealdesk.add_card_note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clarifies note shape (title + body) and routing, but does not say whether notes are append-only versus replaceable, whether cardId/projectId must exist and be authorized, or what the call returns. The existence of a sibling patch_card_note implies add is additive, but the description never states it.

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 plus one routing clause, front-loaded with the positive action before the exclusions. Every clause either defines the tool or routes to an alternative; nothing is padding.

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 4-parameter, unannotated mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers selection and routing well. The remaining gap is behavioral: no statement of note persistence semantics, ordering, or auth requirements, which an agent calling a write endpoint would benefit from.

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 75% and the description adds only the 'title + body' framing, which maps to the already-documented text and title parameters. It adds no meaning for cardId (undocumented in the schema) or for the optional/required nature of title beyond what the schema already declares. Baseline 3 when the schema does most of the work.

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 verb and resource: add a structured note (title + body) to a desk card. It also distinguishes itself from dealdesk.patch_card by explicitly reserving the card description field for that sibling, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening either schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-not-to-use routing: use patch_card with description for the main card description, and use log_email (or create_status_update with email_incoming/email_outgoing touchpoints) instead of notes for logging emails. This is exactly the exclusion guidance that prevents sibling misselection.

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