Create Contact Note

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as side effects, return behavior, or authorization needs, but it does not contradict annotations. For a simple create operation, this is adequate.

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, clear sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core action.

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 simple tool with only 3 scalar parameters and no output schema, the description plus schema cover most needed information. However, it lacks explicit usage guidance and does not mention the optional userId semantics, though these are in the schema. Overall, it is close to complete for this level of simplicity.

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 coverage is 100% and each parameter (contactId, body, userId) has a description, so the schema carries the semantic weight. The description does not add any extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, which matches the baseline of 3.

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 'Add a note to a contact' clearly states the action (add) and the resource (note) and its target (contact). It distinguishes itself from siblings like ghl_get_contact_notes and ghl_delete_contact_note by implying creation.

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, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. While the purpose is clear, the agent gets no context about when a note should be added vs. a task or tag, or how it relates to ghl_get_contact_notes.

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