vibemk_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 disclosing side effects. It simply states the action 'Add comment' without mentioning whether it is a mutation, requires special permissions, is reversible, or has any impact on monitoring state. The description lacks behavioral transparency.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences with no redundant information. It is well-structured and front-loads the core purpose immediately. There is no fluff or unnecessary detail.

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 comment-adding operation, the description is mostly complete. It indicates the target (host or service) and the action. However, it does not clarify the relationship between 'comment_type' and 'service_description' (e.g., that service_description is required only when comment_type is 'service'), nor does it mention whether a comment is persistent by default. These details would make the description fully self-contained.

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?

All five parameters have descriptions in the schema, giving 100% coverage. However, the descriptions are minimal (e.g., 'Persistent comment' does not explain what persistent means, and 'comment_type' only says 'Type: host or service' without enumerating allowed values). The description adds little beyond the schema's basic labels, so it meets but does not exceed the baseline for high 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's purpose: 'Add comment to host or service'. The verb 'Add' and the resource 'comment' are specific, and the target (host or service) is explicitly mentioned. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform other 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?

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention related tools like acknowledging problems or scheduling downtimes, nor does it differentiate scenarios where adding a comment is preferred over other actions. The usage context is left completely to the reader.

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