fcrm add contact note

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

Beyond the annotations (destructive, non-idempotent, openWorld), the description discloses that SmartCode/merge tags are parsed before saving, that created_at defaults to the current WordPress time, that a specific capability is enforced by SubscriberPolicy::verifyRequest(), and that hooks/announcements/automations may affect other people with no retries. That is meaningful side-effect and auth context. It does not detail reversibility or return behavior, so it falls short of a 5.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the note-specific behavior is compact, but the policy boilerplate ('Enforced by SubscriberPolicy::verifyRequest(), the policy default for this route group') is internal jargon that adds bulk without actionable meaning for the agent. The formatting and bold headers aid scanning, so it is adequate rather than wasteful.

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 6-parameter, nested, destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers capability requirements, confirmation, side effects, and retry policy, which is substantial. It does not explain the note sub-object fields or the payload/account routing parameters, leaving a modest gap, but the absence of an output schema means return values need not be described.

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 83%, so the schema already documents most parameters, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds the merge-tag parsing behavior for the note description and reinforces the created_at default, but says nothing about the account, confirm, payload, or payload_file parameters.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb and resource ('Add a new note to a contact'), which is enough to distinguish it from list/read siblings like fcrm_contact_notes or fcrm_get_contact. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling it is not, so an agent must infer the add-vs-read split from the verb alone.

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 real prerequisites — a required capability and explicit local confirmation — which frame when the call is legitimate. However, it never names an alternative tool or states a when-to-use/when-not-to-use condition relative to siblings, and the 'which one applies depends on the action being performed' clause is vague rather than directive.

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