Add a note

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false), so the description does not need to restate those. The word 'Append' adds a useful nuance that the note is added to existing content rather than replacing it, but the description provides no further behavioral context such as response shape or side effects.

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, efficient sentence with no filler or redundant restatement. It front-loads the key action and object, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 with a complete schema and an output schema, the description is largely adequate. The only noticeable gap is the lack of usage guidance relative to sibling tools, but the low complexity means the core information needed to invoke the tool is present.

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 already documents both parameters. The description does not add meaningful parameter semantics beyond the schema; it vaguely maps to 'body' being the note content, but no extra detail is provided.

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 ('Append') and resource ('a dossier'), clearly indicating the tool adds a note to an existing dossier. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_status, archive_dossier, or draft_risk_summary, which perform different actions.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is only implied by the tool name and generic action phrase; there is no mention of when a note is appropriate compared to creating a dossier or drafting a risk summary.

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