freshdesk_add_noteAdd a note to a ticket. Notes are internal (private) by default; set private: false for a public note. Freshdesk REST: POST /tickets/{id}/notes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The ticket id to add a note to. | |
| body | Yes | The note content, HTML (required). | |
| private | No | Whether the note is internal/private (default true). Set false for a public note. | |
| notify_emails | No | Agent emails to notify about this note. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description states the tool 'Add a note to a ticket', an additive and non-destructive operation, while the annotations include destructiveHint: true. This is a direct contradiction. The description does not disclose any destructive behavior, and the conflicting annotation means the agent cannot trust whether this action is safe.
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 concise—only two sentences—and front-loaded with the main action. It includes essential details like the default privacy and API endpoint without any waste, earning a top score.
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 an add-note tool with 4 parameters fully described in the schema, the description gives the core action, default privacy, and API reference. It does not mention return values or side effects, but given the schema coverage and low complexity, it is reasonably complete. The contradiction with annotations is a transparency concern, not a completeness gap.
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?
All four parameters have descriptions in the input schema, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats the `private` default and gives the REST endpoint, but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Therefore, a 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 clearly states the action 'Add a note to a ticket' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like freshdesk_reply_ticket. It also explains the default privacy and includes the REST endpoint, reinforcing the tool's purpose.
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 clear context by stating that notes are internal (private) by default and how to make them public, which guides usage. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like freshdesk_reply_ticket, so it lacks explicit exclusions or alternative references.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.