Add Note to Ticket

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only says 'add' (implying mutation) but does not explain side effects, required permissions, idempotency, or how the note is associated with a user (despite a userId parameter). No additional context on behavior is provided.

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 sentence that conveys the essential action. No fluff, no redundant details. Front-loaded with the verb and object, making it easy to scan.

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?

This is a simple mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations. The description provides minimum viable information: it adds a note. But given the context of sibling tools (e.g., create_draft_reply, update_ticket), more context on when to use an internal note vs a customer-visible reply, or any prerequisites, would be valuable. The description is too thin to be fully complete for an agent that has limited knowledge of FreeScout internals.

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% – all three parameters (note, ticket, userId) are described in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate, since the schema already documents parameters and the description doesn't compensate further.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Add an internal note to a FreeScout ticket.' This is specific and distinct from siblings like get_ticket or update_ticket, as it addresses a unique action (adding internal notes). The tool name and title are semantically consistent.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_draft_reply or update_ticket). It doesn't mention typical use cases, prerequisites, or when not to use it. The only hint is the purpose statement itself.

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