add_incident_note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the operation ('Add'), the return type ('Dict: Created note information'), and some usage context. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, permissions, or restrictions (e.g., whether notes can be added to resolved incidents).

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 concise and well-structured: a one-line summary followed by clearly labeled Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.

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 tool, the description covers the core functionality and return value. It lacks edge-case details like permissions or failure conditions, but given the simplicity and presence of an output schema, it is adequately complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides minimal but useful clarification: 'incident_id: PagerDuty incident ID' adds format context, while 'note: Note content' is largely redundant with the schema. The compensation is partial, not fully detailed.

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 a note to an incident' with a specific verb and resource. It also provides the purpose ('for investigation updates, findings, etc.'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_incident or resolve_incident.

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 context for when to use the tool ('for investigation updates, findings, etc.'), which is helpful. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, though the sibling set makes it clear this is the only note-adding tool.

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