Add Public Comment

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

Annotations already indicate non-readOnly (write) and non-destructive. The description adds that the comment is appended to the ticket thread and emails the requester, which are key behavioral details beyond the annotations.

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 concise, with only two sentences. The first sentence states the primary action and optional attachments; the second covers behavioral effects and the alternative tool. No wasted words.

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?

The description covers the main behaviors (comment creation, emailing, attachments) and distinguishes from the sibling. It does not mention permissions or rate limits, but given the tool's simplicity and the presence of annotations, it is sufficiently complete.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the attachment mechanism ('uploaded via the Zendesk Uploads API and carried on the comment') and confirming that body text is sent to the requester and supports HTML.

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 adds a public comment to a ticket, specifies it is visible to the requester, and optionally includes file attachments. It directly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'add_private_note' by contrasting public vs. internal notes.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool (adding a public comment) and when not to (use 'add_private_note' for internal notes). It also explains that attachments are handled via the Zendesk Uploads API, providing implementation guidance.

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