infoset_add_ticket_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it discloses the default privacy side effect (internal-only visibility), that HTML is rendered, that the call mutates the ticket timeline, and that the response contains the created log id. It omits permission/auth requirements and whether notes trigger customer notifications, which is the main remaining gap.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the visibility default and cleanup path following in priority order.

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 3-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers action, target endpoint, default behavior, content format, and the shape/usefulness of the return value. An agent has everything needed to call 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 100%, so all three parameters are already documented, including the same isPrivate semantics and HTML rendering note. The description therefore largely restates structured data; its only marginal addition is connecting isPrivate to the default behavior in prose.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Add a note to a ticket timeline') and pins it to the endpoint POST /v1/tickets/logs. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like infoset_create_ticket and infoset_get_ticket_logs, which create tickets and read logs rather than appending a note.

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?

Gives the key decision rule for the one meaningful choice: notes are private by default and isPrivate=false is needed to surface them to the customer. It also points to infoset_delete_ticket_log as the follow-up for undoing a note. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance (e.g. when to prefer updating the ticket description instead).

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