add_finding_note

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: authentication requirement (write scope), rate limiting, and the return value wrapping behavior (F-002 wrapped entry). It also references the environment variable to disable wrapping and a design document, providing comprehensive transparency.

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 at around 4 sentences, with the main purpose stated first. It includes useful but non-essential details (like DEC-027 reference). Could be slightly more streamlined, but overall efficient.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (3 params, no annotations, rich output schema), the description covers purpose, usage context, parameter constraints, and return value specifics. It complements the output schema by explaining the wrapping behavior, making it complete for an AI agent.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description adds critical parameter details: finding_id must be >0, entry is note text, private defaults to false. It also explains the return value's entry field wrapping, which goes beyond the schema. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 'Add a note to a finding.', which is a specific verb+resource combination. It is distinct from sibling tools like add_finding_tags or close_finding, and the context of write scope and rate limiting further clarifies the action.

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 mentions prerequisites ('Requires write scope') and rate limiting, giving clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide alternatives among siblings, which would improve guidance.

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