notes_create

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. 'Create a new note' implies a write operation, but it fails to describe critical behaviors: whether authentication is required, if there are rate limits, what happens on success/failure, or if the note is immediately visible. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 at three words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Create'), making it easy to parse quickly. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness, as noted in other dimensions.

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 tool's complexity (2 parameters with nested objects, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It doesn't cover parameter meanings, behavioral traits, usage context, or expected outputs. For a create operation in a CRM-like system with sibling tools, more detail is needed to guide effective use.

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 2 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description provides no information about them. It doesn't explain what 'properties' or 'associations' mean, their required fields (e.g., 'hs_note_body'), or how to structure them. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving parameters largely undocumented.

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 'Create a new note' clearly states the verb ('Create') and resource ('note'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what constitutes a 'note' in this context (e.g., a CRM note, engagement note) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'notes_batch_create' or 'engagement_details_create', leaving room for ambiguity.

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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., required permissions), when to choose batch operations (like 'notes_batch_create'), or how it differs from similar tools (e.g., 'engagement_details_create'). This absence leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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