defender_add_alert_comment

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

The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond annotations: it specifies that the operation is an append (not an overwrite), that the comment becomes visible to analysts in the Defender portal, and frames it as a triage write. Annotations already signal readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description does not contradict them.

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?

Two sentences deliver the action, the resource, the context, and routing advice with no wasted words. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence earns its place by steering the agent away from the wrong sibling tool.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what happens, who sees the result, and how to differentiate it from the incident-comment tool. Nothing essential is missing.

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%: both alert_id and comment have clear descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline without exceeding it.

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 ('Append a comment'), a clear resource ('an alert's comment thread'), and the purpose ('a triage write'). It also distinguishes itself from the incident-comment sibling by explicitly noting that whole-case notes belong on the incident, so an agent can select this tool without ambiguity.

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 clear context for when this tool is appropriate: appending a comment to an alert thread. It also provides an exclusion and alternative by stating that case-level notes belong on the incident instead, which implies the sibling defender_add_incident_comment. It could be more explicit about when not to use it, but the guidance is strong enough.

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