Add a timeline note

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive and non-read-only, and the description adds meaningful side-effect context: it 'may notify recipients or change tenant data' and requires operator write opt-in plus confirm:true. This goes beyond the structured annotations by warning about notification and tenant-data mutation.

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 dense but well-structured: a one-line purpose, the endpoint, key body fields, a reference link, and the critical write/confirmation requirement. Every sentence earns its place, and the essential warning about tenant data is front-loaded enough.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essential inputs (incidentID, body fields), the approval requirement, and side effects. It does not need to explain return values since none are defined, and the reference link supplements details on payload structure.

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 describes body only as a generic 'Complete API JSON payload,' so the description's mention of 'Body fields: entryType, text' adds real semantic value. It also names the path parameter via the endpoint and clarifies confirm's role, complementing the 75% 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 opens with 'Add a timeline note,' a specific verb plus resource, and reinforces it with the exact endpoint POST /api/xm/1/incidents/{incidentID}/timeline-entries. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling add/comment/event tools like xmatters_add_a_comment_to_an_event.

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 implies usage by naming the endpoint and body fields, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. The write opt-in and confirm:true requirement gives operational context but no comparative guidance.

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