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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=true and the title, so the description earns credit for disclosing the key behavioral fact that the note is internal-only and invisible to the customer, plus the underlying write operation (POST .../messages type note). It does not cover permissions, idempotency, or whether the note appears in ticket history, leaving some mutation behavior undisclosed.

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 short clauses, front-loaded with the WRITE classification and the core action, followed by the API mapping. No filler sentences.

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?

Covers what is created, its visibility, and the endpoint for a 5-parameter mutation with no output schema. Return value is not described, which is a minor gap since no output schema exists to carry it, but nothing required to call it correctly is missing.

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 five parameters (id, body, html, user_id, attachment_ids) are already documented with semantics like default plain text and the enchant_list_users cross-reference. The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (add) plus resource (internal note to a ticket), and the parenthetical 'not sent to the customer' pins down the exact artifact being created. An agent can distinguish it from enchant_reply_to_ticket without opening either schema.

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 'not sent to the customer' qualifier effectively communicates when to use this rather than the customer-facing reply_to_ticket sibling, and the REST endpoint mapping anchors it to a known operation. It stops short of an explicit when-not/alternative statement, so it is clear context rather than full routing guidance.

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