add_job_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool is a mutating operation ('The only tool here that changes anything') and precisely defines the extent of mutation ('append a note and nothing else'). It does not mention any edge-case failures, but for a simple append operation 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 well-organized with a leading summary, a scope paragraph, and a simple args list. Every sentence serves a purpose; it is concise without being terse, and omits fluff.

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 append tool with an output schema, the description fully specifies what it does, its scope, and its parameters. The limitations are explicitly stated, so an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description compensates with an Args section. It clarifies each parameter: job_card is the ID, note is the text, author is the source. This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare titles, making parameters clear.

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 note to a job card', a clear verb+resource. It further distinguishes itself from siblings by stating 'The only tool here that changes anything' and lists what it cannot do, which disambiguates it from the other read-only tools.

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?

It explicitly scopes usage: 'It is narrow on purpose: it can append a note and nothing else.' It also provides when-not guidance: 'It cannot alter a job's status, its parts or its price - those are decisions that need a person.' This tells the agent when not to use it, though it doesn't name alternative tools.

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