Add solution to ticket

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral fact not captured by annotations: the ticket status transitions to Solved as a side effect. It still omits whether an existing solution is replaced and whether specific permissions are required.

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 core action front-loaded and the side effect in parentheses. Nothing is wasted and nothing is buried.

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, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description notes the state change, which is the key behavioral fact for a mutation tool. Remaining gaps (replacement of prior solutions, permission requirements) are minor given the supporting structured data.

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 are documented there, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no additional meaning about ticketId or content format beyond what the schema already provides.

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 and resource ('add a solution to a ticket'), and naming 'ticket' disambiguates it from the sibling solution tools glpi_add_change_solution and glpi_add_problem_solution. It stops short of explicitly routing the agent away from those siblings, but the resource noun is clear enough to select correctly.

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, no prerequisites (e.g. ticket must be open/assigned), and does not name alternatives such as glpi_add_followup or the change/problem solution variants. Usage context is entirely implied by the name.

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