create_note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only covers a workflow pointer. It says nothing about required permissions, side effects, whether the note is immediately visible, or error conditions for a mutation tool. The 'opportunity notes cannot be created via API' constraint lives only in the schema, not the description.

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?

Two short sentences with the action front-loaded and the prerequisite second. No filler; every clause 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?

The nested relationships object and mutation nature are non-trivial, and with no annotations and no output schema the description should disclose more about permissions, effects, and return shape. The prerequisite guidance is useful but leaves the behavioral picture incomplete.

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 type, fields, and relationships, including the enum and the 'name is required' rule. The description adds the pointer to get_note_configurations for field discovery, which is modest value over the schema. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new Productboard note (insight)'. This is clearly distinguishable from the entity and relationship tools, though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with create_entity or note-creation alternatives.

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?

Provides an explicit prerequisite workflow: 'Call get_note_configurations first to discover available fields and note types'. This tells the agent how to prepare, though it offers no when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives to create_note.

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