add_incident_work_note

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

The description discloses that it appends a new journal entry and never modifies existing work notes, which is good behavioral transparency. No annotations provided, so the description carries the burden. It does not mention prerequisites or error handling, but for a simple append 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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the action, and contains no unnecessary words.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (2 required params, no output schema), the description covers the main aspects: action, target, and behavior. It could mention return values or error conditions, but is largely 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 description explains that sys_id identifies the incident, but does not add details about the note parameter beyond what the schema provides. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description only partially compensates.

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 tool adds a work note to an incident, using 'Add a work note to an incident identified by sys_id', and distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying the target entity (incident). It also clarifies the append-only nature.

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 (when you need to add a work note to an incident), but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives for other entities like requests or requested items. However, the name and context make it clear.

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