ghl_contact_update_note

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds OAuth scopes and endpoint info, which are not in annotations. However, it does not explain the update behavior (e.g., partial vs full replacement) or side effects. Minimal added value beyond annotations.

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 very short (two lines), which is concise, but it sacrifices completeness. It lacks structured information and reads more like a raw API reference than a user-friendly guide.

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 tool has 3 parameters including a nested body object and no output schema, the description provides insufficient context. It does not explain the response format, how to construct the body, or any constraints. Schema alone is not enough for effective tool invocation.

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% with detailed field descriptions. The tool description does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score 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 'Update Note' which clearly indicates the action on a note resource. However, it is minimal and does not differentiate from sibling tools like ghl_contact_create_note or ghl_contact_delete_note. The endpoint details add context but the purpose is somewhat vague.

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 vs alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions. The description lacks any usage recommendations.

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