add_note

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether the note is appended or replaces existing notes, whether the 2000-char limit applies, or what happens on failure. Minimal added value.

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 six-word sentence with the action front-loaded and zero filler. It is appropriately terse, though the brevity edges toward under-specification rather than genuine conciseness.

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 simple mutation tool with no output schema this is on the thin side: the description omits append-vs-replace semantics, note length limits, and any indication of the response. Annotations cover safety only, leaving behavioral expectations undocumented.

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 coverage is only 50% — lead_id is documented but the 'note' parameter has no description despite carrying a maxLength constraint. The description says nothing about either parameter, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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+resource ('Add a note to a lead'), which is unambiguous and distinguishable from siblings like create_lead or update_lead_status. It lacks any explicit sibling differentiation, but the action is clear enough to select correctly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_lead_status, nor any mention of prerequisites or context (e.g., after a call, for logging interactions). Usage must be entirely inferred.

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