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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent behavior. The description usefully adds the side effect that the problem status changes to 'Solved', which is not encoded in annotations. However, it omits auth requirements, error/validation conditions, and re-solve semantics, so it adds only partial behavioral context.

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 that states the action and its most important consequence immediately.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The mutation's key side effect is noted, but the description is thin on when to choose this over sibling solution tools and on any state prerequisites, leaving gaps for an agent acting among many similar 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%, so both parameters (problemId, content) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter format or constraints, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Add a solution to a problem'), which is clearly distinct in name from the generic glpi_add_solution and glpi_add_change_solution siblings. It does not explicitly explain how it differs from the generic add_solution tool, 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling glpi_add_solution or glpi_add_change_solution, nor any prerequisites such as the required problem state before a solution can be added. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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