add_note

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses that the note is always attributed to the API-token owner, that no override for author exists (preventing audit-attribution spoofing), and that entryAt defaults to now and is preserved across updates. This adds valuable behavioral context.

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 three sentences, each providing essential information. The first sentence states the purpose and constraint, the second explains attribution, and the third covers entryAt. No wasted words.

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 5 parameters (1 required), no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, entity linkage constraints, attribution behavior, and parameter semantics. It is complete for a tool that creates a resource.

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 covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), but the description adds meaning: content is stored verbatim and treated as MARKDOWN, entryAt is ISO-8601 for backdating, and explains mutual exclusivity and attribution implications.

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 'Add a note to a party, opportunity, or project.' It specifies the verb and resource, and distinguishes from siblings by naming the three target entities and the mutual exclusivity constraint.

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 explicitly says 'Provide exactly one of partyId, opportunityId, or projectId.' It also mentions attribution and backdating. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives, but it provides clear context.

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