Add internal note

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds real context beyond those flags: the audience/visibility model ('Only staff see notes, never the customer') and the practical non-idempotency consequence ('Each call adds a new note'), warning the agent that repeat calls create duplicates. It does not detail auth/permissions or return behavior.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and each adds a distinct fact (action, visibility, non-idempotency). No filler or repetition, though it is minimal rather than richly structured.

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 explained, and annotations carry the safety/mutation profile. For a simple two-parameter write tool the description is nearly sufficient, with the notable gap being parameter semantics given 0% schema coverage.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it only implicitly suggests a ticket reference and note body without naming or explaining ticket_id or body. No format guidance (e.g., ticket_id is numeric-only) is provided, leaving the schema to carry parameters it does not document.

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+resource: 'Add an internal note to a ticket.' This is clearly distinct from siblings like search_tickets, get_ticket, export_tickets, and issue_refund, which an agent can tell apart without opening schemas. It stops short of explicitly naming siblings, so 4 rather than 5.

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 line 'Only staff see notes, never the customer' implies this is the channel for staff-only communication, which hints at when to use it. However, no explicit when/when-not conditions or alternatives (e.g., a customer-visible reply tool) are named, so guidance remains implied.

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