Save a note on a call

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

Annotations already disclose the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the description's job is to add context, which it does: it explains the carry-forward linkage via carryFrom and the summary fallback. It does not say whether a second save replaces or appends to an existing note, which is the main behavioral gap.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and timing before the mechanics, with no filler. The middle sentence is somewhat dense ('this call, its task, or its number'), but each sentence carries distinct information.

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?

There is no output schema, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover safety. What remains underspecified is the mutation semantics (overwrite vs append on a repeat save) and error behavior for an invalid callId, but for a two-parameter note tool the description is largely sufficient.

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 50%: callId is documented in the schema while text has only a type and maxLength. The description compensates by telling the agent what belongs in text ('the quote, terms, and dates a business gave') and frames it as 'short', which aligns with the 1200-character cap. It stops short of mentioning the length limit or which call identity forms carryFrom accepts.

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 gives a concrete verb and resource ('save a short note'), marries it to a trigger ('after a call ends'), and explains the downstream effect (later calls start with it when carryFrom names this call). That mechanism is unique among the siblings, so an agent can separate it from get_call, end_call, or list_calls without opening a schema.

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?

It states the condition for use ('after a call ends') and indirectly states the cost of skipping it ('Without a note, later calls use the call's summary instead'). No alternative tool is named, but none competes for this job, so the guidance is effectively complete.

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