create_contact_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 only states the simple action of creating a note and does not mention potential side effects, permissions, rate limits, or behavior around note_preview beyond its default. For a write operation, this lack of detail leaves the agent unaware of any implicit constraints.

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 appropriately concise and well-structured. It opens with a one-sentence purpose, followed by a clearly formatted parameter list. Every sentence contributes necessary information, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 tool with only three parameters and an output schema, the description supplies the essential purpose and parameter semantics. It could benefit from explicit usage guidance relative to sibling tools, but the scope is simple enough that an agent can likely select and invoke it correctly. The lack of annotation context is partially mitigated by the clarity of purpose.

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?

Even though the schema has 0% description coverage, the description compensates by explaining each parameter in plain terms: contact_id, note, and note_preview. It adds meaningful context beyond the schema's titles, especially noting that note_preview defaults to the full note when omitted. This is valuable for correct invocation.

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 tool's action and target: 'Create a note attached to a single contact.' This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_note or create_deal_note, which likely handle notes in other contexts. The scope is unambiguous.

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 the appropriate context—attaching a note to a contact—and the sibling list shows alternative note-creation tools for other contexts. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives, such as 'use create_note for standalone notes.' Still, the context is clear enough without formal exclusions.

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