zendesk_post_comment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It mentions that the reply is visible to the requester, which is useful. However, it does not disclose any side effects, permission requirements, or constraints (e.g., ticket must be open).

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 two sentences, front-loading the essential action and purpose. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or unnecessary information.

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 tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the key aspects. It explains the purpose and visibility. It could mention that it expects a ticket ID and body, but these are clear from the schema. It is adequate for a low-complexity tool.

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 0%, so the description should add meaning to parameters. It provides no additional information beyond the parameter names and types. The parameters are self-explanatory, but the description fails to add context like formatting or constraints.

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 action (post a public reply), the resource (Zendesk ticket), and the use case (customer-facing responses). It distinguishes itself from a sibling tool like zendesk_post_internal_note.

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 explicitly says 'Use for customer-facing responses,' which guides the agent on when to use this tool. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it, but the context implies it is for public replies only.

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