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

Beyond the sparse annotations (only destructiveHint=true), the description discloses two behaviors an agent could not infer: that public comments may be emailed to the client, and that retrying after an unclear error can double-post. Those are exactly the side-effect and idempotency hazards that matter for a write call.

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?

Three short sentences with zero filler: operation and mode first, then the semantic distinction, then the safety rule. The endpoint line is the only borderline element but is compact and additive rather than redundant.

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 3-parameter write tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description covers everything an agent needs to call it correctly: thread scope, visibility semantics, HTML-ish body handling via the schema, and the retry hazard.

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%, so the schema carries the field documentation and 3 would be the baseline. The description earns above-baseline credit by explaining the real consequence of the visibility parameter — a public reply is client-visible and may be emailed — which is not in the schema's terse "public = visible to the client".

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 opens with a specific verb and resource — "WRITE: add a comment to a ticket's main thread" — and the thread scoping distinguishes it from gorelo_create_ticket. It also names the transport (POST /v1/tickets/{ticketId}/comments), leaving no ambiguity about what operation is performed.

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?

It gives clear usage context: use public vs private depending on whether the client should see the comment, and a concrete operational rule (do not retry on unclear errors). It doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative such as gorelo_list_ticket_comments for reading, so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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