tickets_comment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the required fields and the three modes, but it does not mention side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or what the API returns. The core behavior is covered, but gaps remain.

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 is concise with no fluff, using a single paragraph. It front-loads the purpose and then enumerates modes. Could benefit from bullet points for the three modes, but it is still effective.

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?

Given the moderate complexity (7 params, multiple modes), the description covers the essential aspects: what the tool does, how to use each mode, and a required field warning. Without an output schema or annotations, it is sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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 already has descriptions for all 7 parameters (100% coverage). The description adds significant meaning by explaining the semantic combinations of hidden and do_not_email to define the three modes, and reiterates the importance of subject.

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 tool adds a comment to a ticket and explains three distinct comment modes (email reply, public note, private note). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like tickets_list_comments or tickets_get_comments by focusing on creation.

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 on when to use each mode via combinations of hidden and do_not_email. It warns about the required subject field. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when NOT to use this tool.

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