dealdesk.add_contact_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden but only implies a mutation ('Add'). It says nothing about whether the note appends or overwrites, required permissions, or what happens if contactId is invalid, leaving the agent without meaningful behavioral context for a write operation.

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 front-loaded sentence that wastes no words and puts the action first. It is efficient, though bordering on under-specified rather than optimally informative.

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 simple note-creation mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the what but omits the how (auth, project scoping behavior beyond what the schema states, error/return expectations). The fairly detailed projectId schema field partially compensates, keeping this at a minimum-viable 3.

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 schema already documents title (optional, max 120), text (required), and the nuanced projectId authorization rule. The description's '(title + body)' merely restates two schema params and adds no syntax or format meaning, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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') plus resource ('note to a customer-directory contact') and clarifies the payload shape ('title + body'). The contact resource cleanly separates it from siblings like add_card_note and add_company_note, though it never names the update counterpart patch_contact_note.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus patch_contact_note, nor any prerequisites (e.g. the contact must exist). Usage is left entirely to inference from the tool name.

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