Add a note to a CRM record

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety behavior is covered structurally. The description adds no behavioral context beyond restating the operation, such as whether the note is appended or overwritten, what permissions are required, or what is returned. It does not contradict the annotations, but it also contributes little beyond them.

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 front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. Every word contributes to identifying the operation and supported record types. There is no structural waste.

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 six-parameter mutation tool, the schema is fully documented and the annotations cover safety traits, reducing the description's burden. However, the description omits usage guidance and any behavioral notes about the result of adding a note. It is minimally adequate but not fully complete.

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 all six parameters are already documented in the input schema, including duplicate-matching risks for email and phone and the record_id preference. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. With full schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: adding a note to a CRM record. It also names the three supported record types (customer, organization, potential), making the operation clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as crm_add_or_update, so it falls short of a 5.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or which sibling tool to choose for related operations. Usage is only implied by the tool's name and single-sentence purpose.

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