dealdesk.patch_contact_note

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that this is a mutation and that deletion is impossible via MCP, which is useful, but it says nothing about required permissions, whether unspecified fields are preserved (patch semantics), or how expectedUpdatedAt drives concurrency — all material for a write tool.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no redundancy: action, prerequisite, and boundary. Every sentence earns its place.

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 6-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the prefetch requirement and the delete limitation but omits concurrency semantics, field-preservation behavior, and most parameter meanings, leaving real gaps an agent must guess at.

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 only 17%, so the description must compensate. It references noteId and updatedAt (for expectedUpdatedAt), but leaves contactId, title, and the projectId scoping rule unexplained, and never clarifies that text is required while title is optional.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('Update an existing contact note'), which cleanly separates it from the sibling add_contact_note (create). However, it does not name that sibling explicitly, so differentiation is implied rather than spelled out.

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?

It gives a concrete prerequisite ('Prefer get_contact first for noteId and updatedAt') and a boundary ('Delete is not available through MCP'), which tells the agent when this tool applies and what it cannot do. It stops short of explicitly routing creation to add_contact_note or contact edits to patch_contact.

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