add_work_note

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

The description adds that the note is internal (not visible to end users) and requires WRITE_ENABLED=true, going beyond annotations which only indicate non-readOnly and non-destructive. No contradictions with annotations.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource. The prerequisite is included concisely in parentheses. 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?

For a simple mutation tool with comprehensive annotations, the description covers purpose and a key prerequisite. It does not detail side effects or success/failure behavior, but the presence of annotations partially compensates. Overall adequate.

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% and already describes each parameter (table, sys_id, note) and the internal nature of the note. The description adds no extra semantic detail beyond what the schema provides.

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) and the resource (internal work note to any ITSM record). It distinguishes from the sibling 'add_comment' by specifying 'internal', making its purpose unambiguous.

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 a clear prerequisite (WRITE_ENABLED=true) and implies this is for internal notes versus public comments. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or name the alternative sibling tool, leaving some room for interpretation.

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