add_comment

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

Annotations already convey the write nature (readOnlyHint=false) and non-idempotency. The description adds valuable context: the comment is customer-visible and requires WRITE_ENABLED=true. This goes beyond the annotations and gives the agent important operational knowledge.

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 sentence that conveys the core action, scope, and a critical requirement. No fluff, front-loaded with the verb, and all words earn their place.

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 3-parameter tool with fully described schema and annotations, the description is complete enough for invocation. It does not discuss return values, but since there is no output schema and the operation is straightforward, this is acceptable.

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% and the schema already describes each parameter, including 'Comment text (visible to end user/caller)'. The description adds little beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Add'), identifies the resource ('customer-visible comment'), and scopes it to 'any ITSM record'. It clearly distinguishes from the sibling 'add_work_note' by specifying the comment is customer-visible, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 clear context ('customer-visible', 'any ITSM record') and a prerequisite ('requires WRITE_ENABLED=true'). It implies when to use this tool vs. internal work notes, but it does not explicitly name an alternative or state when not to use it.

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