Update contact note

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

Annotations already indicate it's a write (readOnlyHint=false) and idempotent (idempotentHint=true). The description is consistent with these and adds no contradictory behavior. However, it doesn't clarify whether the update is a full replacement or partial, nor mention any side effects or permission requirements. Given annotations cover some traits, the description adds minimal additional context.

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 clear sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise and front-loaded with the primary action. It could arguably be expanded with usage details, but for what it includes, it is well-structured.

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?

Given the low schema coverage, lack of output schema, and no usage guidelines, the description is incomplete for a mutation tool. It does not mention error scenarios, behavior for nonexistent notes, or how userId affects the operation. Siblings like ghl_update_contact_note exist, so differentiation guidance would be valuable but is absent.

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 only 25% (only 'body' has a description). The tool description adds no explanation for contactId, noteId, or userId, which are not described in the schema either. The description does not compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving parameter meaning mostly inferred from names rather than explicit documentation.

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 clearly states the action ('Update the text') and the resource ('an existing note on a contact'), distinguishing it from siblings like create, delete, and get contact note. No ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ghl_create_contact_note or ghl_delete_contact_note. No context about prerequisites, such as needing an existing note or the significance of the optional userId. The description simply states the operation without usage conditions.

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