Add note to consultation request

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral weight. It does disclose the append-only behavior and the 'internal' nature of the note, which is useful. However, it does not mention authorization expectations, what happens with the optional author_email, or any response/error behavior.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It communicates the core action, scope, and the key non-overwriting behavior efficiently.

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?

The tool is simple, but the description leaves some gaps: no usage differentiation from reply_to_consultation, no mention of the optional author_email, and no behavioral details beyond appending. It is adequate for a basic call but not fully complete for an agent deciding between sibling tools.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description needs to compensate, but it only loosely maps 'note' to message and 'consultation request' to inquiry_id. The optional author_email parameter is not addressed at all, and no guidance is given on how it affects attribution.

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 uses a specific verb ('Append') and resource ('consultation request's thread'), and explicitly clarifies that it adds an internal note without overwriting prior notes. This clearly distinguishes it from update_consultation_request and reply_to_consultation at a glance.

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 wording 'internal note' implies this is for staff-side annotations rather than replying to the requester, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over reply_to_consultation or update_consultation_request. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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