post_inbox_apps_note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Adds a note' indicates a mutation, but there is no mention of side effects, required permissions, idempotency, or response behavior. For a write operation, this is a notable gap, as an agent cannot infer whether the note is appended, replaces, or requires specific conversation state.

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 a single sentence that states the action and endpoint, with no filler. It is concise and front-loaded, but could include a hint about the user object or note formatting without becoming verbose. Slightly terse but efficient.

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 tool with 6 parameters (including nested objects) and no output schema, the description is minimal. The schema covers parameter details, but the description doesn't explain the overall flow, whether the note is appended to an existing thread, or how to handle errors. It's adequate for a basic understanding but lacks richer context that would help an agent call it correctly in varied scenarios.

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 83%, with descriptions for body, user, extraBody, extraQuery, and externalConversationId; inboxAppId is undocumented. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema. It doesn't clarify the role of inboxAppId or provide format examples, so it stays at the baseline for high coverage.

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 resource and action: 'Adds a note to an Inbox App conversation.' It also provides the REST endpoint, which reinforces the specific resource. This distinguishes it from siblings like create_note (general notes) and post_inbox_apps_message (messages vs. 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 description implies when to use it (when adding a note to an Inbox App conversation), but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives. Siblings like create_note exist, but there is no guidance on choosing between them. The usage context is implied but not explicitly contrasted.

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