glpi_add_change_followup

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states that a followup is added to a change's timeline but does not disclose side effects such as triggered notifications, permission requirements, whether is_private defaults, or idempotency. For a mutation tool, this is a transparency gap.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that states the full purpose without redundancy. The parenthetical clarification '(acompanhamento)' adds value for non-native speakers. Every word earns its place.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema or nested objects, the description is minimally complete but doesn't add context about when the is_private flag matters or what happens after a followup is added (e.g., notifications, visibility). Adequate but not enriching beyond the essentials.

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% with the schema documenting all 3 parameters (id, content, is_private). Since the schema already handles parameter documentation, the baseline of 3 applies; the description adds no additional parameter semantics, but none is required.

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 'Adiciona um followup (acompanhamento) à timeline de um change' uses a specific verb (Adiciona/adicionar) and clearly identifies the resource (a followup on a change's timeline). It uniquely distinguishes this from the sibling ticket/problem followup tools by its clear change-module scope.

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 only implied through the action verb — the agent can infer this tool is for adding followups to change entities. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over the analogous ticket/problem followup tools, nor any exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., requiring an existing change).

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