add_note

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-readonly, non-idempotent, non-destructive write, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: notes are appended (accumulative), auto-timestamped, and capped at 2,000 characters — a limit absent from the schema. It does not cover permissions or error behavior.

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 well-formed sentence that front-loads the action and appends the key constraint. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the mutation safety profile. What remains missing is minor: permission requirements and whether the contact must pre-exist.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden, and it only partially does: it implies contact_id via "a contact's timeline" and gives a 2,000-character limit for text, but never documents either parameter by name or format.

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?

"Append a timestamped note to a contact's timeline" is a specific verb+resource with the mutation's effect stated plainly. It is clear, though there are no similarly-named siblings to differentiate it from, so it stays just 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?

The description never states when to add a note versus another action (e.g. create_task or update_deal_stage), nor any prerequisites such as the contact existing. Usage is only inferred from the tool name and the phrase "contact's timeline".

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