add_rhr_comment

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

Annotations already signal that the operation is not read-only and has open-world effects, but the description adds important behavioral context: the message is visible to the client and is recorded in the request history/chat. This clarifies the side effect of the operation beyond what the boolean annotations alone convey.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence states the action and target without any filler or redundant phrasing. Every word earns its place, and the key behavioral qualifier 'видимое клиенту' appears early.

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?

Given the simple 3-parameter mutation, the presence of annotations, and full schema descriptions, the description is largely complete. It could note what the API returns or that the operation requires a valid existing request ID, but the schema already ties the id to list_rhr_requests and requires confirm=true.

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?

The input schema fully describes all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, though it does reinforce that 'message' is the content being added.

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 uses a specific verb ('Добавить') and a specific resource ('видимое клиенту сообщение в историю заявки (rhr/chat)'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like list_rhr_requests, create_rhr_request, and discard_rhr_request, which all operate on the same domain but with different actions.

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 purpose implicitly conveys when to use the tool: when a client-visible message needs to be appended to an RHR request thread. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, mention prerequisites, or name alternative sibling tools that might be confused with it.

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