add_comment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Add' implies a write/mutation operation, but nothing is stated about side effects, required permissions, whether the comment is immediately visible, or what happens on failure. The @Name mention reveals a behavior not otherwise visible, but lacks details on how mentions are resolved or notified.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. The parenthetical about @Name mentions is efficiently packed. There's no wasted wording, though it's arguably too brief given the missing behavioral and parameter guidance.

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 tool's simplicity (2 params, no nested objects, no output schema), the description provides the core purpose and one notable feature (mentions). However, with zero annotations and zero schema coverage, the description should carry more weight for behavioral context like permissions and side effects. It's adequate for a simple tool but leaves real gaps for a mutation operation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for explaining both parameters. It mentions 'body text' and @Name mentions, which clarifies the body parameter's role, but it doesn't clarify what ticket_id format or semantics are beyond the schema's UUID format. The description adds some value for body but generally leaves parameter meaning to the bare schema.

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+resource combination ('Add a comment on a ticket') that clearly states what the tool does and what resource it targets. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_ticket (creates tickets vs comments) and update_ticket (modifies vs adds). The parenthetical about @Name mentions adds useful context, though it doesn't fully differentiate from create/update operations.

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?

No explicit guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't explain relationship to create_ticket/update_ticket or mention any prerequisites (e.g., ticket must exist first, required permissions). The mention of @Name support hints at a use case but doesn't provide when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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