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

Annotations declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, non-idempotent, openWorld), and the description adds a genuinely useful trait beyond them: the change's status is set to Solved as a side effect. It stops short of noting what happens if a solution already exists (non-idempotent overwrite risk) or any permission requirements.

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 with no filler, and the side-effect disclosure is placed inline rather than buried. Every word earns its place.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and both required parameters are fully covered by the schema. The description is complete for invocation purposes, though it lacks any routing guidance relative to the many sibling solution/followup 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and both parameters (changeId, content) are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no format, validation, or usage nuance for either parameter.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Add a solution to a change") and the parenthetical discloses the resulting state change. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from near-name siblings like glpi_add_solution or glpi_add_problem_solution, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

No guidance on when to use this instead of glpi_add_solution, glpi_add_problem_solution, or glpi_update_change. The agent must infer from the tool name alone which resource/solution variant applies.

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