Create a note

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

Annotations already declare the non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive profile, and the description reinforces the idempotency consequence concretely ("Calling it twice creates two notes"). It also adds genuine value beyond annotations by disclosing the side effect that linked notes appear on records and can trigger workers. It stops short of stating permission requirements or any rate limits.

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?

Three short sentences with zero filler: purpose first, then linkage semantics, then the duplicate-call warning and return shape. Nothing is buried and nothing repeats the schema verbatim.

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?

With an output schema present, the brief return-value mention is sufficient, and the atomicity and worker-trigger behavior round out what an agent needs for a three-parameter create tool. The remaining gap is that it never says how to obtain valid record ids or when to prefer updating an existing note instead.

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 100%, so titles, content format, and record id constraints are already documented in the schema, including the 24-hex id pattern and the all-or-nothing failure on unknown ids. The description confirms the records can be companies, people, or deals but adds no format or syntax detail beyond that baseline.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ("Creates a note") and immediately scopes it with optional record linking. The verb unambiguously separates it from heliyos_notes_list, heliyos_notes_get, and heliyos_notes_update without the agent needing to open other schemas.

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?

Usage is only implied: it hints that linking to a company, person, or deal makes the note visible on those records and can trigger workers, which suggests why to link. There is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not guidance, and no routing to heliyos_notes_update for existing notes or heliyos_records_lookup for finding ids.

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