Create Contact Note

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, readOnly=false, openWorld=true and non-idempotent, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond that: it explicitly states the tool changes community state and gates execution behind confirm=true, which is a behavioral requirement not present in the annotations.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and then the gating rule. No filler, though the first sentence largely duplicates the title.

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?

With full schema coverage, complete annotations, and no output schema, the definition is nearly self-sufficient; the confirm requirement is the key extra behavioral note. It stops short of describing side effects or return behavior, but nothing critical to correct invocation is missing.

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% and each parameter (account, confirm, payload, contact_id, tiptap_body, payload_file) is self-documented. The description references confirm only implicitly; the baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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?

States a clear verb+resource (create a contact note), which an agent can distinguish from the list_contact_notes read sibling. The first sentence is a near-restatement of the name, adding little beyond the title, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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 supplies one concrete precondition (confirm=true for the user-requested action), which is real guidance. However, it offers no when-to-use vs. alternatives reasoning, no prerequisites, and no exclusions relative to other note/post creation tools.

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