Add solution to problem

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

Annotations already declare the write/safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=false). The description adds a genuine side effect not present in the annotations: the problem's status is changed to Solved as a result of the call. It stops short of covering repeatability (adding a second solution) 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 the action front-loaded and the state consequence attached where it matters most. No filler, nothing to trim.

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 low-complexity two-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage, complete annotations, and an output schema, the description covers purpose and the key state change. The one meaningful gap is disambiguation from the ticket/change solution siblings, which the description never addresses.

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% and both parameters (problemId, content) are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no format, constraint, or meaning beyond what the schema already states.

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 and resource ('Add a solution to a problem'), which is clear on its own. It does not, however, differentiate from near-identical siblings such as glpi_add_change_solution or glpi_add_solution, which an agent could easily confuse with this one.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus the sibling solution tools (glpi_add_solution, glpi_add_change_solution) or when a followup (glpi_add_problem_followup) is more appropriate instead. The parenthetical about status change is a consequence, not usage guidance.

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