add_ops_note

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

The description explicitly mentions the write-permission requirement, which adds useful access-control context beyond the annotations. The annotations already indicate this is a writing operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-idempotent, so the description does not need to restate those. It does not disclose side effects or scoping behavior, but the permission note provides some added 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 a single short sentence that communicates both the operation and the key permission constraint. There is no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded. Every word 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 creation tool with fully described parameters, the description is minimally adequate, but it lacks important contextual guidance: when to add an ops note versus other note/update tools, what the note is used for, and whether the scoping fields are mutually exclusive or additive. The absence of an output schema also leaves the return behavior unexplained, though that is not strictly required by the rubric.

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 100%, so the input schema already fully documents all four parameters (note, tags, group_ids, device_ids). The description adds no additional meaning about parameter semantics, such as how scoping works or whether tags are controlled vocabulary. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the full weight.

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 a specific action and resource: 'Add an ops note.' It is readily distinguishable from sibling update/delete/get ops-note tools by the verb. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from conceptually similar tools like add_alert_note, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add_alert_note or update_ops_note. The only added context is 'requires write permission,' which is a prerequisite rather than a usage guideline. No exclusions, alternatives, or recommended contexts are given.

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