create_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses useful behavioral details: contact_ids are comma-separated and limited to 1-10, note can contain HTML, and note_preview falls back to the first 100 characters if empty. However, it does not mention permission requirements, error behavior, idempotency, or what is returned, leaving notable gaps for a create mutation.

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 highly efficient. A one-sentence purpose statement is followed by a compact Args list, with every detail earning its place. No fluff or redundancy, and the front-loaded summary gives immediate clarity.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The description covers all three parameters with sufficient depth, and the tool's core behavior is straightforward. The main missing piece is usage guidance relative to the similar create_contact_note sibling, but for a create operation with clear parameter semantics, the description is largely complete.

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 schema provides only type information and no descriptions, so the parameter explanations in the description are essential. The description adds rich semantics: contact_ids format and cardinality, note content type (HTML allowed), and the preview fallback rule. This far exceeds the schema's bare structure.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('note') with a clear attachment target ('attached to one or more contacts'). It is unambiguous in what the tool does, but the presence of a sibling tool named create_contact_note introduces potential confusion; the description does not explicitly differentiate from that sibling.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_contact_note or update_note. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context signals indicating the intended use case, leaving the agent with no basis for tool selection decisions.

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