rx_comment_ticket

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

Annotations cover the safety flags (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), and the description adds context beyond them: the comment is visible to all board participants, it cannot be edited or deleted through this server, and the agent must show the text to the user before calling. This is meaningful behavioral disclosure not present in the structured fields.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: purpose first, then visibility/immutability constraints, then alternatives, then the id source, then the confirm-before-send instruction. Front-loaded and free of filler.

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 two-parameter mutating tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, its side effects and visibility, the id source, and an interaction guardrail. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 baseline is 3, but the description compensates further by specifying that a numeric card Id from rx_tickets/rx_board is required and that ABC-12 style codes are not accepted. It adds source and format guidance beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions.

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?

States a specific verb+resource combination (добавить комментарий к карточке) and explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings: card fields are changed by rx_update_ticket and existing comments are shown by rx_ticket. An agent can separate this tool from its neighbors without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit usage conditions ('записать ход работы или ответить в обсуждении') and names the two alternative tools with the condition that selects them. It also tells the agent where to obtain the required id (rx_tickets or rx_board), leaving nothing to inference.

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