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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows this mutates server state. The description adds the 'LIVE incident' scoping constraint, but says nothing about required permissions, whether the note is editable/deletable afterwards, or error behavior on non-live incidents. Adds some value but not rich behavior disclosure.

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 with zero filler; the core action and its scope constraint are front-loaded, followed by the endpoint reference.

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 add-note mutation with full parameter coverage and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. Remaining gaps are minor: it does not state the error path for non-live incidents or confirm the note is returned, but nothing critical to calling it 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 three parameters (message, incidentId, attachments) are already documented in the schema. The description only restates the optional attachment URLs, adding no format or syntax detail beyond the schema. 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?

The description gives a specific verb+resource (add a war-room note to an incident) plus the underlying endpoint (POST /v3/incidents/{IncidentId}/warroom). It contrasts naturally with the sibling list_incident_notes, so an agent can distinguish write-note from read-notes 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 word 'LIVE' implies notes are only addable to currently active incidents, which is a useful implicit usage constraint. However, no explicit when-to-use/when-not or alternative sibling is named, and it does not say what happens if the incident is resolved.

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