create-note

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

Annotations indicate this is a non-destructive write operation (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false), which the description aligns with by using 'Create'. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond annotations—it specifies the record types but doesn't cover error conditions, permissions, or what happens on success (e.g., whether a note ID is returned). With annotations covering safety, a baseline 3 is appropriate for the limited 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose ('Create a note') and immediately specifies scope, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 required parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the 'what' but lacks context on usage, errors, or output. With annotations providing safety info and schema covering parameters, the description is incomplete but not critically so for basic understanding.

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%, with all parameters clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying 'record type' relates to 'resource_type', but doesn't explain the enum values or parameter interactions. This meets the baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Create a note') and specifies the target resources ('for any record type (companies, people, deals)'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential sibling note-creation tools (though none are listed), and the parenthetical list omits some resource_types from the enum (e.g., 'lists', 'tasks'), creating minor inconsistency.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing valid record IDs), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'create-record' or 'list-notes'. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and parameters.

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