customer_notes_create

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description's 'Add a note' aligns with a write operation. It adds useful context by stating 'Returns {success, id}', disclosing the response shape, and by highlighting that either customer_id or customer_external_id can be used. However, it does not discuss side effects, idempotency, or authorization requirements, which would deepen transparency.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the action ('Add a note') and provides the return value in a compact parenthetical. Every word contributes value, with no repetition of schema field descriptions or annotation details.

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 straightforward create tool, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, target resource, identification options, and return value. It omits the site requirement for multi-site API keys, but that is already documented in the schema, so the description does not need to repeat it. Error conditions or prerequisites are not mentioned, but the absence is acceptable given the tool's simplicity and the supportive schema.

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 description adds a small but meaningful clarification that the customer can be identified 'by id or externalId', linking customer_id and customer_external_id. It also implicitly prioritizes text as the note content, but does not add syntax or formatting details 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 uses a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('note to a customer'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like customer_notes_list and customer_notes_delete. It also specifies both identifying methods (id or externalId), which disambiguates it from other customer-related create operations.

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 states that it adds a note to a customer, implying it is the correct tool for creating customer notes. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., 'For listing notes, use customer_notes_list' or 'For removing notes, use customer_notes_delete'), nor does it mention conditions like the site requirement for multi-site API keys. Usage context is implied but not fully elaborated.

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