add_requested_item_work_note

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that the operation appends a new journal entry and never modifies existing work notes, which is valuable behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 sentence with a parenthetical clarification and an additional sentence on behavior. It is concise and front-loads the action, with no wasted 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 no annotations or output schema and simple parameters, the description is fairly complete. It identifies the resource, action, append-only behavior, and hints at filtering. It does not mention return value or error handling, but these are minor gaps for a straightforward creation tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds minimal meaning: sys_id identifies the requested item and note is the content, but it does not explain format, constraints, or provide examples. The mention of filtering by parent is about usage, not parameter semantics.

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 action (add a work note) and the resource (requested item, sc_req_item). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'requested item' versus incident or request, and includes context about being a line item under a parent Request.

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 for adding work notes to requested items and hints at filtering by parent request, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_incident_work_note or add_request_work_note. No exclusions are mentioned.

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