rx_comment_ticket

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds real context beyond them: the comment is visible to all board participants, it is editable/deletable afterwards by the author, and it instructs the agent to show the user the comment text before calling. It doesn't cover failure modes (e.g., permissions or character limits), keeping it from a 5.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by visibility, alternatives, prerequisites and the display-before-calling rule. Every sentence carries distinct information with no 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 mutation tool with annotations present and no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it does, side effects (board-wide visibility), edit/delete follow-ups, the source of the required ID, and the user-confirmation step.

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%, so both parameters are already fully documented, including the numeric-Id requirement and the note that a code like ABC-12 will not work. The description only restates the ID source (rx_tickets / rx_board) and adds nothing new about syntax or format, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 a comment) plus the exact resource (an agile board card) and the acting identity (on behalf of the user). It distinguishes itself from rx_edit_comment, rx_delete_comment, rx_update_ticket and rx_ticket by name, so an agent can select it without opening any sibling 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?

It states when to use the tool (to record work progress or reply in a discussion) and routes the agent to the correct alternatives: rx_edit_comment to fix, rx_delete_comment to remove, rx_update_ticket to change fields, rx_ticket to view existing comments. This is explicit when/when-not plus alternatives.

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