Add Task Comment

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

Annotations already mark the operation as mutating and non-idempotent. The description adds valuable behavioral context: comments are customer-visible by default, while work notes are internal to fulfiller staff. It does not contradict the annotations and goes beyond their basics.

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 exactly two sentences: the first states the core function and scope, the second clarifies the key parameter behavior. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no superfluous 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?

For a simple mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what the tool does, what record types it applies to, and how to switch visibility. It doesn't mention return values or error handling, but those are less critical for this kind of tool and the schema documentation fills in the parameter gaps.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the is_work_note parameter's effect but adds no new details beyond what the schema already states (e.g., visibility semantics). No additional parameter-level insight is provided.

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 states a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('a comment or work note to any task-based record'), and explicitly names example record types. It clearly distinguishes the tool's function from sibling tools like assign_task or close_incident by focusing solely on adding comments/notes.

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 clearly indicates the tool's purpose and the two modes (comment vs. work note), so an agent knows when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternative tools for other record modifications, leaving the differentiation to inference.

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