Add followup to change

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

Annotations already disclose the key traits: readOnlyHint=false (a write), idempotentHint=false (repeats create duplicates), destructiveHint=false (safe/non-destructive). The description adds nothing beyond this - it does not mention that followups are appended and irreversible, nor describe the effect of is_private. With annotations present the bar is lower, but no additional context is supplied.

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 short sentence with zero waste and the action front-loaded. It is efficient, though its brevity means little guidance is packed in.

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 simple with an output schema (so return values need not be explained), full parameter coverage, and annotations covering the safety profile, making the definition minimally viable. However, it says nothing about duplicate-creation behavior (non-idempotent) or the visibility implications relevant to this mutation.

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%, so all three parameters (content, changeId, is_private) are already documented in the schema, establishing the baseline of 3. The phrase 'comment/followup' loosely maps to the content parameter but adds no format, length, or visibility semantics beyond the schema.

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 a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('comment/followup to a change'), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not distinguish this tool from near-identical siblings such as glpi_add_problem_followup or glpi_add_followup, but the resource noun makes the target clear.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like glpi_add_followup, glpi_add_change_solution, or glpi_list_change_followups. No prerequisites (e.g., valid change ID, permissions) are stated, leaving usage entirely to inference.

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