glpi_add_problem_followup

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

Annotations are not provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states it 'adds' a followup, which implies mutation, but it does not specify whether it appends to a timeline, whether it overwrites existing content, or if it is a synchronous action. It also doesn't mention any permission requirements or potential limits. For a mutation tool with no annotations, the description is insufficiently transparent about behavior, so a score of 2 is appropriate.

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 a single concise sentence in Portuguese, perfectly front-loaded with the action and target. Every word serves a purpose, and there is no filler. This is an ideal length for a tool description, so a 5 is warranted.

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?

The tool is a simple followup addition with 3 parameters and no output schema. The description is complete for a straightforward mutation: it indicates the action and target. However, given that annotations are absent, the description could have added context about the expected outcome (e.g., whether it's reflected in the timeline immediately) or whether the followup is added as private by default. These are minor gaps, making the description adequate but with room for enrichment, hence a 3.

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?

The input schema has 100% descriptor coverage for all three parameters, so the schema already provides meaning. The description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema. Per the rubric, with high schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description doesn't clarify details like formatting of content or whether is_private defaults to false, but the schema covers the essentials, so a 3 is fair.

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 states 'Adiciona um followup (acompanhamento) à timeline de um problem' which is a clear and specific action: adding a followup to a problem's timeline. It distinguishes it from siblings like glpi_add_ticket_followup and glpi_add_change_followup by indicating it is for problems. A score of 4 is appropriate because while it clearly states the verb and resource, it does not explicitly contrast with its siblings, though the name itself already differentiates.

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 implies usage (to add a followup to a problem) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this over alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. It does not mention whether this is a privileged action or requires prior authorization. Since there are clear sibling tools for tickets and changes, a brief note could help. The context signal shows no annotations and the description gives no exclusions, so the usage context is implied and not fully explicit, warranting a 3.

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