add_comment

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

Adds context beyond annotations: the comment is customer-visible and requires WRITE_ENABLED=true. No contradictions with annotations (readOnlyHint=false). Does not cover edge cases like record existence.

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?

Single sentence, direct, no filler. Front-loaded with the action and key constraint.

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 mutation tool with full schema documentation, the description is sufficient. Could mention behavior when WRITE_ENABLED is false or record not found, but not necessary given low complexity.

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 100% so baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying 'customer-visible' for the comment parameter, but does not add other parameter-specific details.

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 a customer-visible comment' and the resource 'any ITSM record'. It distinguishes from sibling like add_work_note by specifying 'customer-visible', but does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

Provides a precondition (WRITE_ENABLED=true) but no explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives like add_work_note or update_record. Usage is implied but not fully contextualized.

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