glpi_add_ticket_followup

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

The description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the basic action. It does not mention side effects, permission requirements, rate limits, or whether the operation is safe or has impact on the ticket's state. Since no annotations are provided, this lack of transparency leaves users uninformed.

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 that immediately states the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words, making it highly efficient.

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 mutation tool, the description is incomplete. It does not mention what happens after adding a follow-up (e.g., return value, success indication), any error conditions, or whether a valid ticket ID is required. Given the tool's simplicity, this lack of context leaves important gaps for the user.

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 schema provides descriptions for all parameters (ID, content, is_private), which gives high coverage. According to the rubric, a baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description itself adds no additional meaning to the parameters, such as constraints or format expectations, but the schema already covers the basics.

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 clearly states that the tool adds a follow-up to a ticket's timeline, using the verb 'Adiciona' and specifying the target as 'timeline de um ticket'. This distinguishes it from similar tools for problems and changes, but it could be more specific about what a follow-up entails.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as needing an existing ticket, or any conditions that would make this tool preferable to other related tools like glpi_add_problem_followup.

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