Add a note to a JSM alert

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

The description discloses the asynchronous behavior with a warning to verify via jsm_get_request_status, and notes the actor defaults to the credential owner. These traits are not captured in the annotations, which only cover readOnly/destructive hints. The 'without changing its state' clarification is valuable and consistent with the annotations.

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 well structured with logical sections: usage, args, returns, async warning, and an example. The core purpose is front-loaded, and each section serves a purpose. The inclusion of the unsupported user/source params adds a minor structural blemish but overall it remains concise 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?

The description includes return shape, async warning, and a concrete example, plus strong guidance on alert_id. However, the contradiction between the documented optional args and the actual schema means an agent following the description could fail at runtime, which prevents it from being fully complete.

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 already documents alert_id and note at 100% coverage, so the description adds little for those parameters. However, the Args section mentions optional 'user' and 'source' parameters that are not defined in the schema, and additionalProperties is false, meaning they would be rejected. This misleading extra information actively harms parameter understanding.

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 states a specific verb ('Append a note') and resource ('a JSM alert's activity timeline') and immediately clarifies the action does not change alert state. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like jsm_update_alert_note, jsm_add_alert_tags, and jsm_acknowledge_alert.

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 explicit use cases: 'record triage findings, link a runbook or dashboard, or leave context for the next responder' and states what it does not do: 'does not acknowledge, close, or reassign the alert.' It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives for those excluded actions, but the guidance is still clear and actionable.

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