teamleader_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 states that the operation adds a note and can optionally notify users, but it does not mention permissions, reversibility, return values, or what happens on invalid subject types. This is a significant gap for a create operation.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. The trailing 'etc.' is slightly vague, but overall the structure is efficient and easy to parse.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin. It does not describe the response, error conditions, or side effects beyond optional notifications, and the agent must rely entirely on the schema to understand required inputs. The complete parameter coverage helps, but the behavioral context is missing.

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 input schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds little beyond restating the optional notification behavior and listing subject types already present in the enum, so it meets the baseline but does not elevate it.

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 uses a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('a note to a subject'), and enumerates common subject types, making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It does not explicitly compare itself to sibling tools like teamleader_update_note or teamleader_list_notes, so it misses the top score for sibling differentiation.

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 the tool: whenever a note needs to be created on a supported entity. However, it offers no explicit guidance about alternatives (e.g., updating an existing note with teamleader_update_note) or when not to use it, leaving the routing decision mostly to inference.

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