Add solution to change

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

Annotations already declare this a non-readonly, non-idempotent write, and the description adds a genuinely useful side effect beyond them: the change status transitions to Solved. It does not state whether an existing solution is overwritten, required permissions, or notification side effects.

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, front-loaded with the action, with the state-change consequence in parentheses. Nothing wasted.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a mutating tool that changes status to Solved, the description omits whether the change must be in a particular state beforehand or whether permissions are required, leaving gaps an agent would want filled.

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 only two parameters, so the schema already documents changeId and content. The description adds nothing about parameter formats or constraints, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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?

States a specific verb (add) and resource (solution to a change), which is enough to distinguish it from the ticket and problem solution siblings by resource. It does not explicitly name those alternative tools, but the resource is unambiguous.

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 never says when to use this tool versus glpi_add_change_followup, glpi_update_change, or the ticket/problem solution variants. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name; no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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