Add an internal note (the customer never sees it)

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true), the description discloses critical behaviors: the customer never sees the note, no email is sent, and the note serves as a draft for human approval. It also explains that markdown/plain text is converted to HTML, adding meaningful context not covered by annotations.

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 well-structured and concise: a clear first sentence, a rationale paragraph, and a processing note. Each sentence earns its place by conveying purpose, usage, or behavioral details without unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, when to use it, privacy behavior, no email, and format handling. The schema sufficiently covers parameter-level details, so no gaps are evident.

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 67%, with body and notify_emails already described. The description mentions 'Accepts markdown or plain text' for body, which is redundant with the schema, and does not add semantics for ticket_id (which is implied by the tool name). It does not compensate for the missing ticket_id schema description, but this is a common and obvious parameter.

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 opens with 'Add a private note to a ticket', using a specific verb and resource. The title and description explicitly emphasize that the customer never sees it and no email is sent, clearly distinguishing this tool from freshdesk_reply_to_customer and freshdesk_add_public_note.

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 provides explicit guidance: 'Prefer this over freshdesk_reply_to_customer whenever a person should approve the wording first.' It also explains that this is where a draft reply belongs, giving a clear use case and effectively naming an alternative.

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