add_work_note

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only operation (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds the 'internal' nature (not visible to end user) and the WRITE_ENABLED requirement. These provide some context beyond annotations, but the description does not explain what happens on failure or whether the note is appended or overwrites existing content.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action and a key prerequisite. No redundant filler or restatement of the tool name. It 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 mutation with a fully described schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It omits what happens on success (e.g., return value) or failure, and whether the note is added to the activity log. Since no output schema exists, a bit more detail about effects would improve completeness.

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 fully documents each parameter. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, such as format of sys_id or examples for table. It only restates that it works on 'any ITSM record', which aligns with the table parameter's description.

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'), the specific resource ('internal work note'), and the scope ('any ITSM record'). The word 'internal' distinguishes it from sibling tool 'add_comment', which presumably adds a visible comment, so the purpose is unambiguous.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'add_comment' or 'update_record'. It mentions a prerequisite ('requires WRITE_ENABLED=true'), but this is a constraint rather than usage direction. No exclusions or alternative tool references are given.

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