add_note

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: note attribution to API-token owner, intentional absence of creatorId to prevent spoofing, markdown handling of content, and preservation of entryAt across updates. This adds critical context for safe usage.

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 concise, with two efficient paragraphs. The first states purpose and the key constraint. The second covers behavioral details. Every sentence adds value; no redundancy or fluff.

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 complexity (5 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers purpose, usage constraints, behavioral details (attribution, backdating, markdown), and security rationale. It is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. Return value is not described, but since no output schema exists, the description is still 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining mutual exclusivity of the ID parameters, markdown rendering for content, and the temporal semantics of entryAt (backdating, preservation across updates). This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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 tool's purpose: 'Add a note to a party, opportunity, or project.' It specifies the unique constraint (exactly one of three IDs), which distinguishes it from siblings like add_tag or create_opportunity. The verb 'Add' combined with the resource 'note' and the target entities is precise.

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 clear usage context: 'Provide exactly one of partyId, opportunityId, or projectId' and explains the author attribution and backdating option. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like update_entry (which modifies an existing note) or list_*_entries, missing an opportunity to guide when not to use this tool.

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