add_incident_comment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the operation is destructive, what side effects occur, or what the response contains. Including query-like variables (after, filter, order, first) without explanation is misleading for a mutation tool, as it suggests filtering/ordering capabilities that are not relevant to adding a comment.

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 includes a redundant list of variables already present in the schema and a long example JSON string. The example may be useful but is not well-integrated, making the description cluttered and lacking clear structure.

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 tool with six parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It fails to clarify the role of the optional variables, explain expected behavior, or describe return values. The confusing inclusion of filter/order variables without explanation leaves an agent unable to confidently invoke the tool 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?

The schema has descriptions for all parameters, but they are generic type labels (e.g., 'GraphQL: String') that add little value. The description supplements this by specifying the input shape (IncidentCommentInput { incidentId, comment }) and providing a concrete example. However, it does not explain the meaning or purpose of after, filter, order, and first, leaving ambiguity.

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 opens with 'Add a comment to an incident,' which clearly identifies the action and target resource. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like add_case_comment and add_task_comment by naming the incident resource specifically. The additional input type mention reinforces the purpose.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add_case_comment or add_task_comment. It does not mention prerequisites, permissions, or exclusions. The only usage indication is the purpose statement itself, which is implied rather than explicit.

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