Create contact note

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, indicating a non-idempotent write operation. The description confirms the write action but adds no extra behavioral context, such as that each call creates a distinct note, appends to contact history, or any side effects. openWorldHint=true hints at possible effects, but the description does not elaborate. There is no contradiction.

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 six-word sentence with zero wasted words. The verb is front-loaded and the resource follows immediately. Every word contributes to the meaning, making it an exemplar of conciseness.

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 create operation, the core action and target contact are clear, and the annotations cover the mutation and non-idempotence aspects. However, the description lacks usage context to distinguish it from other note operations and does not indicate what response to expect, leaving the agent to infer return behavior and preconditions. It is adequate but has clear gaps.

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?

The schema describes body and userId, while contactId lacks a schema description. The phrase 'to a contact' clarifies that contactId identifies the target contact, adding some meaning beyond the bare parameter name. With 67% schema coverage, the description does not need to compensate heavily, but it also does not elaborate on the body parameter or the userId default behavior already covered by 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 states a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('a note to a contact'), making the action unmistakable. It is clearly distinct from sibling operations like ghl_get_contact_note, ghl_update_contact_note, and ghl_delete_contact_note, as well as ghl_create_contact. The title and description align perfectly.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention that ghl_list_contact_notes or ghl_get_contact_note are for reading, or that ghl_update_contact_note and ghl_delete_contact_note are for modifying. An agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and sibling list.

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