Add incident note

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

Annotations establish that this is a non-read, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds meaningful detail by specifying exactly which fields are written on the journal business object, giving the agent a clearer model of the side effect than the annotations alone.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the field-level detail is compact and useful without being redundant with the schema.

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 write tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool does and what it writes. It could be more complete by explicitly mentioning that the rec_id identifies the incident to attach the note to, but the schema already communicates that.

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%, and each parameter already has a clear description. The description adds marginal value by noting that Notes, Summary, and ParentLink_RecID are written, but it does not elaborate on parameter formats or relationships beyond what the schema provides.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Create a journal note on an incident.' It also names the affected fields (Notes, Summary, ParentLink_RecID), which clearly distinguishes this write tool from the read-oriented get_incident and the state-changing 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?

Usage is implied by the action described: use this tool when you need to add a journal note to an incident. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it compares to resolving an incident beyond the obvious difference in purpose.

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