Add Internal Note

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'A write.' It adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: notes are teammates-only and never sent to the end-user, and the tool returns a result. This goes beyond what the structured fields convey.

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?

Three sentences total: the first covers purpose and visibility, the second states the write nature, and the third gives usage guidance and the alternative. Each sentence adds unique information without redundancy.

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 tool with two required parameters and no output schema, the description is self-sufficient. It covers the what, visibility, write nature, when to use, parameter resolution, and when not to use, giving an agent all necessary context for correct invocation.

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 clear descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value by instructing to resolve conversation_id via list_conversations, which is not present in the schema, thereby providing practical guidance for parameter values.

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 'Add an INTERNAL note to a support conversation' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing 'visible only to your team, never sent to the end-user' and directly naming reply_to_conversation as the alternative for public replies.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use it to record context or hand off' and provides a cross-tool reference to resolve conversation_id via list_conversations. It also gives an exclusion: 'For a public reply use reply_to_conversation instead.'

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