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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, destructive, open-world mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the non-obvious audience semantics (comments visible to caller, work notes internal only), which is real behavioral context beyond the annotations. It still omits whether the append is reversible and what permissions are required.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the comment/work-note distinction immediately following. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the visibility semantics cover the main ambiguity. Remaining gaps are minor: no permissions prerequisites and no routing to a sibling tool for related incident edits.

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 coverage is 100% and each parameter is documented, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's visibility note for 'type' largely restates the schema's own enum-ish description rather than adding syntax or format detail.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Add a comment or work note to a ServiceNow incident') and disambiguates the two content modes. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like servicenow_update_incident, which could plausibly also append text to an incident.

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 by the visibility distinction (caller-visible vs internal), which tells the agent which mode to pick, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or naming of alternative tools for appending information to an incident.

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