add_noteAdd an internal note to a conversation, as the signed-in teammate. Customers never see notes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | The note, in plain text. | |
| mentions | No | Teammate ids from list_members to notify. | |
| conversationId | Yes | The Aide conversation id (`cnv_…`), from find_conversation. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / mentionsAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Teammate ids from list_members to notify.",
+ "items": {
+ "maxLength": 64,
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "maxItems": 50,
+ "type": "array",
+ "uniqueItems": true
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world write; the description adds genuinely new context beyond them — the note is attributed to the signed-in teammate and is never surfaced to customers. It stops short of describing mention/notification side effects.
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?
Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the visibility constraint second. Nothing is redundant or padding.
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 additive write with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers author identity and audience visibility, which is what an agent most needs to call it correctly. Mention/notification behavior is left to the 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 all three parameters are already documented in the schema, including mentions and the cnv_… id format. The description adds no parameter-level detail, which is acceptable at this coverage level.
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?
States a specific verb and resource (add an internal note to a conversation) and clarifies the actor is the signed-in teammate. The line 'Customers never see notes' implicitly distinguishes it from reply_to_conversation, though that sibling is never named explicitly.
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?
Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is for internal-only commentary and that customer-facing text belongs elsewhere, but no explicit when-to-use or alternative tool (e.g. reply_to_conversation) is named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.