add_note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys the write nature ('Add a note') but does not disclose what happens on success, error behavior for a nonexistent entity_id, side effects such as timeline entries or notifications, or how the note types affect behavior beyond the schema's enum.

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?

Two compact sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core action and target entities; the second earns its place by expanding the scope of supported note types. Nothing is redundant with the schema or name.

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 4-parameter create tool, the core semantics are adequately covered by the description plus a fully documented schema. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves prerequisites (entity must exist) and success/return behavior unaddressed, which an agent invoking a write operation would benefit from knowing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 — the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds a mild semantic gloss by framing the note_type enum values as 'incoming/outgoing call logs' and 'service messages,' but it adds no meaning for text or entity_id beyond what the schema states.

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 states a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('a note to a lead, contact, or company'), which aligns with the tool name and the entity_type enum. It differentiates cleanly from all siblings, which cover leads, contacts, companies, tasks, and events but include no other note-creation tool.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose: use this tool when a note must be attached to a lead, contact, or company. The second sentence sketches supported scenarios (common notes, call logs, service messages), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites (e.g., the entity must exist), or exclusions — though no sibling competes for the same job.

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