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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=true, so the description adds real value by stating it is a mutation and clarifying the default-visible-to-requester behavior of the `public` flag. It stops short of stating permanence, editability, or auth requirements for the mutation.

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 clauses, mutation warning front-loaded, then the one non-obvious parameter behavior. Every sentence earns its place with zero filler.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description covers purpose, mutation nature, and the default-to-public behavior. Minor gaps remain around the response and whether comments can be altered after posting.

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 already documents id, body, and the public/internal-note semantics of `public`. The description's explanation of `public` largely repeats the schema, giving no additional format or constraint detail, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("add a comment to a ticket") plus an explicit MUTATING marker, which cleanly separates it from read siblings like zendesk_list_ticket_comments. It does not name a sibling or alternative directly, so it falls short of the 5 bar.

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 tells the agent how to use the `public` flag but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool versus alternatives such as zendesk_update_ticket or zendesk_create_ticket. Usage is implied by the verb, not stated.

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