create_note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions that the tool creates a new note and supports plaintext/markdown formatting, but does not disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, error handling, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant 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?

The description is appropriately sized with two sentences that are front-loaded with the main purpose. Each sentence earns its place by specifying the tool's function and format support, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating usage notes).

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 that this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral aspects (e.g., permissions, side effects), response format, or error conditions. While the schema covers parameters well, the overall context for safe and effective use is insufficient.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning attachment to records and format support, but does not provide additional syntax, examples, or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate 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 verb ('Create') and resource ('a new note attached to a record in Attio CRM'), specifying that notes can be attached to people, companies, or other object types. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_company or create_person by focusing specifically on notes rather than creating records themselves.

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 by mentioning attachment to records and supported formats, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to attach a note vs. updating a record directly). It provides some context but lacks explicit guidance on exclusions or comparisons with sibling tools.

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