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

Annotations already declare a non-destructive write operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: comments are plain text with blank lines separating paragraphs, and ticket followers are notified. These side-effect details are not present in the structured data and help the agent understand the consequences of the 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and every sentence adds value—formatting constraints and notification behavior. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 simple 2-parameter tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly complete: it covers purpose, formatting, and side effects. It could optionally mention return behavior (e.g., what the API returns), but given no output schema, this is a minor gap.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful formatting semantics for the 'text' parameter (plain text, blank lines for paragraphs) that the schema merely labels as 'The comment'. It doesn't add info about 'ticket_id', but the schema already documents its source.

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 uses a specific verb ('Adds a comment') and resource ('to a ticket'), making the action unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like create_ticket or get_ticket, but the purpose is clear enough that an agent can select it without confusion.

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?

Usage is implied by the description—an agent knows this is for adding comments. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., create_ticket, get_ticket) or any exclusions. It falls into the 'implied usage' tier.

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