nagios_add_comment_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden; it does disclose that comments are persistent, which is useful. However, it does not mention that this is a mutating operation, whether permissions are required, or how existing comments or host/service state are affected.

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?

Exactly one sentence, front-loaded with the action and destination, with no filler or redundant wording. Every word contributes to meaning.

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 write tool with a full schema and output schema present, this description is sufficient. It conveys the persistent nature of the action, the host/service difference, and the purpose, leaving little an agent needs to infer.

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%, so the schema already explains each parameter. The description adds the 'host or service' context matching host_name and service_description, but it doesn't provide any additional semantic detail beyond what the schema already gives.

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 states a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('persistent comment to a host or service in Nagios'), immediately distinguishing this from siblings like status checks or scheduling. The 'persistent' detail and host/service scoping make the tool's role 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 implies usage whenever a persistent comment needs to be attached to a Nagios host or service, but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which sibling to choose instead. For instance, it doesn't contrast with nagios_acknowledge_tool, which is the closest alternative for problem ownership.

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