create_note

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It states 'save' and encourages liberal use, implying non-destructive creation. However, it omits details like whether notes are appended or overwritten, size limits, or return behavior, which would be helpful for an agent.

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 long, each serving a distinct purpose: stating purpose with examples, encouraging liberal use, and giving a prerequisite. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 simplicity of the tool (2 required params, no output schema), the description covers purpose, parameters with examples, and a prerequisite. It doesn't mention return value or error handling, but for a note creation tool, this is fairly 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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by giving concrete examples for 'content' (budget, motivation, etc.) and instructing to capture in user's own terms. For 'contactId', it says to use find_contacts, providing practical guidance beyond the schema.

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 saves freeform context about a contact, with specific examples (budget/price range, motivation, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_contact which handle structured fields.

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 explains when to use (for unstructured context) and advises using find_contacts first to obtain contactId. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use, but the sibling context (update_contact, list_notes) implies alternatives for structured data or retrieval.

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