dealdesk.patch_contact_note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses the delete limitation and hints at optimistic concurrency by pointing to get_contact for updatedAt, but says nothing about required permissions, error behavior, or how partial updates are handled. Useful but incomplete.

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 filler, and the preconditions precede the negative constraint. Every sentence carries actionable information.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers routing and the delete exclusion but leaves concurrency semantics and parameter meanings thin. Adequate minimum viable, not complete.

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 only 17% of 6 parameters. The description only hints at noteId and updatedAt; text, title, contactId, and the semantics of expectedUpdatedAt (conflict behavior, date format) are left undocumented in both schema and description.

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 ('Update an existing contact note'), which cleanly separates it from add_contact_note. It does not name sibling tools directly, but 'existing' implies the note must already exist, so an agent can route correctly without opening the 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?

Explicitly tells the agent to call get_contact first to obtain noteId and updatedAt, and states the negative constraint that delete is not available through MCP. That is real when-to-use guidance, though it doesn't distinguish this tool from patch_card_note/patch_company_note.

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