comment_on_ticket

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses markdown parsing, concurrency safety (no version, cannot 409), role permissions (commenter allowed), the 404 for inaccessible tickets, and that posting does not mark the thread read. This is exceptionally transparent.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place. It starts with the core action, then flows through markdown behavior, concurrency, permissions, error conditions, and side effects. No fluff exists; the length is justified by the high information content.

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?

Given no output schema and the tool's role as a write operation, the description covers all necessary context: behavior, error cases (404), authorization limits, concurrency safety, and post-condition (no read status). An agent has everything needed to select and invoke it correctly.

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 50%: task_uuid has a description but body does not. The description adds vital semantics for body by explaining Markdown parsing, and explicitly notes the absence of a version parameter, which clarifies the parameter space beyond the schema. This fully compensates for the low schema coverage.

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 opening sentence 'Add a comment to a ticket' uses a specific verb plus resource, making the purpose immediately clear. It further distinguishes itself from update_ticket by explicitly framing it as the right way to report something rather than editing the description out from under someone. No ambiguity exists.

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 explicitly contrasts with update_ticket and move_ticket, noting that a commenter role is refused those but allowed this. It identifies clear when-to-use scenarios: concurrent edits and read-only key contexts. This is strong guidance for selecting this tool over alternatives.

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