add_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the note is internal, visible only in inbox, and that the created note is returned. It also hints at a prerequisite (conversation_id resolution). This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema, though it could mention side effects like whether the conversation status changes.

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 extremely concise: three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose (main action, use case, prerequisite). Front-loaded with the core functionality. Zero fluff.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (2 required params, no output schema), the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage, prerequisites, and behavioral constraints. Could optionally describe the returned note structure, but this is not critical for agent selection.

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% with both parameters described. The description adds context beyond the schema: reinforces the internal nature of body, and for conversation_id, provides a hint on how to obtain it (from list_conversations). This adds meaningful value, raising from baseline 3 to 4.

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 tool adds an internal note to a support conversation and returns it. It emphasizes internal vs external (visible only in inbox, never to visitor) and provides specific use cases (triage, context, handoff). Differentiates from siblings like reply_to_conversation (external) and comment_on_task (different object).

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 explicitly says when to use ('record triage, context, or a handoff for a human') and gives a prerequisite ('Resolve the conversation_id first with list_conversations'). It does not explicitly say when not to use, but the internal nature implies exclusion of external communication. Differentiation from siblings is implicit rather than explicit.

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