Add a structured note (optional title plus body) to a company in the customer directory, so account context and updates stay recorded with the right organization.
Add a structured note to a customer-directory company (title + body).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | Note body (required) | |
| title | No | Note title (optional, max 120 chars) | |
| companyId | Yes | ||
| projectId | Yes | DealDesk project id (must match API key / OAuth project) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does 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 discloses only that the note is 'structured' with title + body; it says nothing about whether this is a mutation, required permissions, whether notes are editable/deletable later (patch_company_note exists), or any side effects. For an unannotated write tool this is a significant gap.
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?
A single tight sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly the source of the missing behavioral detail rather than a virtue in itself.
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-param mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: it conveys what is created and on which entity. It omits any behavioral, permission, or lifecycle context that would let an agent call it confidently, leaving the definition thin overall.
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%, so most parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds only marginal value by tying 'title + body' to the title/text parameters, and it does nothing to clarify the undocumented companyId or the projectId/project-must-match-key constraint beyond what the schema already states.
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 (add) and resource (structured note) plus the target entity (customer-directory company) and the two fields involved (title + body). Naming the company scope implicitly separates it from the add_card_note and add_contact_note siblings, though it never names them explicitly.
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 no when-to-use condition, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. An agent must infer from the tool name alone that this is the company variant rather than the card/contact note sibling, and there is no guidance on when a company note is appropriate versus a contact or card note.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.