Add Task Comment

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the visibility difference between comments and work notes. However, it omits details like authentication requirements, error handling for invalid records, or whether it appends to existing comments.

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-loading the primary action and immediately clarifying key behavior. Every sentence adds necessary context without redundancy.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description provides essential behavioral context. It could be improved by noting the return value (e.g., success indicator or updated record details), but overall it is sufficiently complete given tool complexity.

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 provides full coverage with descriptions for all 5 parameters. The tool description adds value by explaining the practical difference between comment and work note, reinforcing the is_work_note parameter's effect.

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 comment or work note to any task-based record, specifying record types (incident, change_request, etc.). It distinguishes between customer-visible and internal work notes, making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling 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?

The description provides clear context for when to use it (adding comments to tasks) and explains the default visibility behavior. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives, such as using update_record for modifying existing comments.

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