dealdesk.add_contact_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, yet it says nothing about required permissions, whether notes are visible to customers, editability, or what the response contains. For a write operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a substantial 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 efficient sentence with the entity and payload shape front-loaded; nothing is wasted. It is arguably too terse for a mutation tool, but structurally it is clean.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and a mutation against a shared contact directory, the description should state at least permissions or visibility expectations. Against this complexity and the 30-plus sibling tools, the single sentence is not sufficient.

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 75%, and the schema already documents text, title, and projectId. The description's '(title + body)' merely restates the title/text fields without adding format, length, or content-type guidance, so it lands at the baseline for a well-covered schema.

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 ('note') scoped to a 'customer-directory contact', and the '(title + body)' parenthetical signals the structured shape. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling add_card_note/add_company_note by naming the contact entity, though it never names those alternatives 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 guidance and never mentions the obvious alternative patch_contact_note, which a sibling tool. An agent must infer whether to add a new note or patch an existing one from the tool names alone.

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