add_incident_comment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the comment is customer-visible and provides content constraints (non-technical audience, no internal hostnames/diagnostics). While it doesn't explicitly state the write nature or error handling, it gives essential behavioral context for a simple mutation tool.

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?

The description is compact and well-structured: a clear purpose statement, usage examples, a brief Args section, and a routing note. Every sentence adds value, and the most important info (customer-visible) is front-loaded.

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 simple 2-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context, content guidelines, and the alternative for internal notes. There are no obvious gaps that would prevent an agent from using it correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It does: number is the incident number, comment is the message the caller reads, and it even adds guidance on how to write the comment. This goes well beyond the schema's bare field names.

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 clearly states the verb (add), the resource (incident comment), and the key property (customer-visible). It explicitly distinguishes itself from update_incident's work_note, which is internal, so an agent can easily tell this tool apart from siblings without opening schemas.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool (communicate with the person who reported the incident: acknowledgements, requests for information, status updates, workarounds) and when not to use it, naming the exact alternative (update_incident's work_note for internal notes). This leaves no ambiguity about selection.

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