add_note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only states the write action ('Adiciona') without mentioning permissions, reversibility, idempotency, whether the note is appended or replaces existing notes, or the shape of the response. This is a significant gap for a mutation 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?

A single, concise sentence that immediately communicates what the tool does, where the note goes, and which entities are supported. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.

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?

The definition is adequate for a simple create operation with 100% schema coverage, but no output schema exists and no annotations are present. The description does not mention what the tool returns on success, failure modes, or any rate limits, which an agent would need for robust invocation and error handling.

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 100%, so the structured data already documents all four parameters. The description adds the semantic context that the note lands on a timeline and that entity_type maps to Lead, Contact, or Company, which aligns with the enum. It does not add detail beyond that, matching the baseline of 3.

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 ('Adiciona' - adds), a precise resource ('nota/observação de texto (common note)'), and the target ('linha do tempo de um Lead, Contato ou Empresa'). It fully distinguishes this operation from any sibling tool; no other sibling creates notes.

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 context of use is implied: when you need to attach a text note to an entity's timeline. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over alternatives (e.g., get_notes for reading, or create_task for actions), and no mention of prerequisites like whether the entity must exist or whether client_slug must match an available client.

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