Create note

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

Annotations already declare the mutation safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the description doesn't need to restate that. The supported-formats list adds real context about acceptable payload shapes, but nothing is said about permissions/scopes, what happens with repeated identical creates despite idempotentHint=false, or what the create response contains.

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?

Short, front-loaded and easy to scan: purpose, retrieval pointer, attachment constraint, then formats. The leading "Create note." line largely restates the title and the following sentence, a small redundancy.

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 3-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description should say what comes back; instead it only tells the agent to call GET /v1/note/{noteId} afterwards, leaving the response shape of the create itself ambiguous. The mutation semantics and payload formats are covered, so the gap is moderate rather than severe.

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 100%, so the schema already documents body, contactId and dealId, including the exactly-one-of constraint which the description merely echoes. The added value is limited to restating the HTML/plain-text format pair, so the baseline of 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?

"Creates a note on a contact or deal" states a specific verb and resource plus the parent entities it attaches to, which cleanly separates it from get_note, list_notes and delete_note. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling as an alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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 the key selection rule for the parent entity ("Exactly one of `contactId` or `dealId` must be provided") and redirects retrieval to the GET endpoint, so an agent knows both how to attach a note and where to read it back. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance (e.g. when to prefer an activity log or feed), so 4 rather than 5.

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