dex_create_note

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well by specifying required fields (event_time) and explaining automatic resolution of meeting_type_id. However, it lacks details about permissions needed, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens on success (e.g., returns a note ID).

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?

The description is efficiently structured with four sentences that each add value: purpose statement, required field, meeting_type explanation, and contact association method. There's no wasted text, and information is front-loaded appropriately for a creation tool.

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 creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by explaining required parameters, enum values, and data relationships. However, it doesn't describe what the tool returns (e.g., created note ID) or potential error conditions, which would be helpful given the lack of structured output documentation.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It successfully adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining: event_time requires ISO datetime format, meeting_type categories and their purpose, automatic resolution of meeting_type_id, how to associate contacts via timeline_items_contacts array, and that note text goes in the 'note' field. This provides comprehensive parameter guidance.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Create a new note or timeline entry') and distinguishes it from siblings like dex_update_note (for updates) and dex_delete_note (for deletion). It specifies the resource being created and the type of entry, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides clear context by stating 'Requires event_time' and listing meeting_type categories, which helps guide when to use this tool. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name alternatives like dex_update_note for modifying existing notes, leaving some room for improvement.

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