add_note

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic operation (adding a note) without discussing side effects, authorization requirements, idempotency, or whether the note is appended or replaces existing ones. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 extremely concise—a single sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the action. However, conciseness comes at the cost of omitting useful details that could fit in one additional sentence.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. The tool is simple with two required parameters. Yet the description lacks any context about prerequisites (e.g., issue must exist) or typical usage, making it merely adequate. A slightly more complete description would improve usability.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate. However, it does not explain the parameters at all. The parameter names (issue_id, note) are self-explanatory to a degree, but the description adds no meaning beyond the schema itself, missing an opportunity to clarify format constraints or relationships.

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 ('Thêm comment (note)') and the target resource ('vào task'), making it immediately obvious that this tool adds a note to a task. It is distinct from sibling tools like log_time or update_issue_status.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks any mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions. The agent receives no help in deciding between add_note and other tools like update_issue_status.

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