add_comment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it adds a comment or work note, but doesn't mention permissions, reversibility, side effects on the incident, or what the response looks like. Minimal behavioral info.

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, clear sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. No wasted words or irrelevant details.

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 mutation tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the difference between comment and work note in practice, any prerequisites, or expected return values. An agent would need to guess about these aspects.

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 67% (incident_id and is_work_note are documented, comment is not). The tool description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema. The comment parameter remains undocumented, and the description does not compensate for that gap.

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' and the resource 'comment or work note to an incident', which is specific and distinct from sibling tools like resolve_incident or update_incident. It distinguishes the two modes (comment vs work note) which is helpful.

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 other incident-related tools, nor does it indicate when to use a comment versus a work note. This is left entirely to the agent's inference from the parameter descriptions.

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