kyt_add_case_note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that notes are timestamped, attributed, and form part of an audit trail for regulators, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention whether notes can be edited or deleted, whether appending is the only operation, or any permission requirements. The audit-trail statement implies immutability but doesn't state it explicitly.

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 with no waste. The core action is front-loaded, and the use-case examples are packed into the final sentence. Every sentence earns its place.

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 two-parameter append tool, the description is nearly complete. It explains the audit-trail significance, which is the key non-obvious context. It doesn't describe the return value, but there's no output schema and the operation is simple enough that an agent can infer success from a standard response. The only minor gap is not stating whether notes are immutable.

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 the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds context about what the note should contain (transaction hashes, counterparty findings, analyst rationale) but doesn't add syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline 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 states a specific verb ('Append'), a resource ('investigation note to a case'), and the purpose ('document transaction hashes, counterparty findings, or analyst rationale'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like kyt_create_case or kyt_get_case, which operate on cases at a different level.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: to document investigation findings, transaction hashes, or analyst rationale. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the use cases are specific enough that an agent can infer the right context.

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