Add followup to problem

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing else – no indication that the followup becomes part of the problem timeline, whether is_private affects visibility in a meaningful way, or permission requirements.

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 filler, front-loading the action. It is efficient, though arguably terse enough that it shades into under-specification rather than ideal conciseness.

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 not be explained. But for a mutation tool the description omits when to use it versus sibling followup/solution tools and any behavioral context, leaving the definition only minimally adequate.

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 the schema already documents problemId, content, and is_private (including the 1=private/0=public mapping). The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 (comment/followup to a problem), so an agent can tell it appends a followup to a problem record. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the many sibling followup tools (glpi_add_followup, glpi_add_change_followup, glpi_add_problem_solution); the problem-scope is only inferable from the name.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance and names no alternatives. With near-identical siblings (glpi_add_followup for tickets, glpi_add_change_followup for changes, glpi_add_problem_solution), an agent gets no help choosing among them beyond the tool name.

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