add_alert_note

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds context beyond those flags: non-idempotency consequences (calling twice adds two notes), the created vs. confirmation_note semantics, and the absence of an undo path. This is useful behavioral disclosure that the annotations alone would not provide.

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?

Well-structured, purpose-first prose with the [WRITE] marker and each sentence carrying weight (routing, idempotency, confirmation, undo). It is slightly long given that annotations already flag idempotency and non-destructiveness, but no sentence is filler.

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 write tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers return values, failure behavior (created null → verify with list_alert_notes), and side-effect expectations (no status/ownership change, no undo). Minor gaps: no error conditions for invalid alert_id or empty note beyond the schema's rejection note.

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 the schema already explains alert_id ('from list_alerts, not the resource UUID'), the note text, and the target default. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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, resource, and intent with a concrete goal (record who is handling the alert and what was done). It explicitly distinguishes itself from acknowledge_alert, and the [WRITE] prefix disambiguates it from the read-only list_alert_notes / get_alert siblings.

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?

Explicitly names acknowledge_alert as the alternative when ownership must be taken, and declares that this tool does not change status or ownership. It also gives a precise when-not-to-retry condition (run list_alert_notes before retrying when created is null).

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