add_finding_note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add real behavioral context for 'private' (visible only to you and superusers), which the schema does not convey, but it says nothing about required permissions, whether the note can later be removed or edited, or any side effects of the write.

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?

Front-loaded with the one-sentence purpose before the Args block, and there is no filler prose. The 'Args:' docstring scaffolding is slightly verbose but each line carries information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. For a simple notes mutation the definition is serviceable, but with zero annotation coverage and no mention of permissions, sibling disambiguation, or note lifecycle, it leaves gaps an agent would want filled.

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%, yet the docstring accounts for all four parameters. Two entries add genuine meaning beyond the schema: 'private' is explained as visibility to you and superusers, and 'note_type' is cross-referenced to list_note_types. The finding_id and entry glosses are largely restatements.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Add a note to a finding'), so the action is unambiguous. It does not distinguish itself from the near-identical siblings add_test_note and add_engagement_note, so an agent must infer the scope from the name rather than the description.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus alternatives such as add_test_note, add_engagement_note, or add_finding_metadata, nor any prerequisites. The only navigational help is 'see list_note_types', which concerns a parameter rather than usage context.

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