create_deal_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It clearly indicates the action (create) and the target (deal note), but it does not disclose side effects, permissions, or response behavior. For a simple CRUD operation, this is adequate but not rich; additional context about potential side effects or preconditions would be beneficial.

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 extremely concise, consisting of a one-line purpose statement and a short argument list. It is front-loaded with the key purpose and includes no wasted words.

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 simple nature of the tool (three string parameters, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential information: purpose and parameters. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other note-related tools, which would improve completeness in the context of many siblings.

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?

The input schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), but the tool description provides concise explanations for all three parameters: deal_id, title, and body. This fully compensates for the schema gap, adding meaning beyond the parameter names.

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 states a specific action ('Create') and a specific resource ('note attached to a deal'), making the purpose unambiguous. This clearly distinguishes it from generic note creation tools like create_note or create_contact_note.

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 usage for deal-attached notes via the phrase 'attached to a deal,' but it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or reference sibling tools such as create_contact_note. There is no direct when-to-use guidance, but the context is reasonably clear.

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