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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-derivable behavior: how idempotency is achieved (fresh UUID per call, reuse only for retries of the same call) and the mention markup syntax. It does not say whether the comment can later be edited or deleted, or what the call returns, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then constraints, then the requestId rule, then the alternative. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 four-required-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the non-obvious parts: idempotency contract, body mention format, and the file-attachment boundary. It omits permissions/auth requirements and any indication of the response, which are the remaining gaps.

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 must carry all four parameters. It explains requestId semantics well and shows the body mention syntax, but projectId and cardId receive no explanation at all. Two of four parameters are meaningfully covered, which is adequate but leaves a real gap.

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 and resource ('Add an internal team comment to a ticket') and qualifies the comment as internal-team-facing, which separates it from the error-comment siblings. An agent can tell this is for ticket comments, not error comments or attachments, without opening the schema.

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?

Gives explicit exclusions and an alternative path: 'No file uploads... To attach files, use the everframe CLI: everframe ticket attach'. It also gives the retry rule for requestId. The only gap is that it does not name sibling tools like add_error_comment or update_ticket_comment as alternatives, but the ticket-vs-error distinction is implied clearly.

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