add_internal_note

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

The description discloses the key behavioral trait that notes are internal (visible only to support team) and not sent to the customer. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden. It could mention more about idempotency, but for a note-posting tool, this is sufficient.

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 three sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose, then explains visibility constraints, and ends with usage examples. Every sentence adds value.

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 note-adding tool with well-documented parameters (100% schema coverage) and no output schema, the description fully captures the context: what the tool does, who sees the note, and what kind of content to use. It is complete for an AI agent to decide when and how to use it.

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 input schema provides 100% descriptive coverage for all four parameters. The description adds minimal extra value beyond the schema, mainly confirming that 'text' defaults to 'markdown' content if omitted and 'customerId' is fetched if omitted. Baseline is 3 due to high schema coverage.

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 the verb 'Post' and the resource 'internal note on a thread'. It distinguishes this tool from customer-facing replies by emphasizing that notes are visible only to the support team and not sent to the customer. Examples like 'investigation summaries, findings, and recommendations' clarify the purpose.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool (posting internal notes) and implies when not to (not for customer communication). It also suggests suitable content types. The sibling tool 'reply_to_thread' stands out as the alternative for customer-facing messages, though not named directly.

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