add_comment

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

The destructiveHint annotation already signals a state-modifying operation, and the description adds the valuable context that comments are internal and hidden from the requestor. However, it does not disclose other potential side effects like time logging or the permanence of the comment, but given the annotation, the bar is lower.

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 a single front-loaded sentence that conveys purpose and the key behavioral constraint. No wasted words.

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?

Despite having five parameters and no output schema, the tool is a simple mutation with rich parameter descriptions and a destructiveHint annotation. The description adequately captures the main functional distinction (internal vs external) in context with sibling tools. Slightly more detail about return behavior could improve completeness, but it's not critical.

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% with all five parameters documented, so the description is not required to add parameter details. The description itself adds no extra semantics beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline for full coverage.

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 an internal comment to a ticket, with the specific qualifier 'not visible to the requestor'. This verb+resource structure immediately distinguishes it from the sibling 'add_reply' tool.

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 implicit usage context by specifying 'internal comment' and 'not visible to the requestor', which tells the agent when to use this over the sibling 'add_reply'. However, it does not explicitly reference the 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.