add_ticket_comment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'WRITE' to signal mutation, explains the default internal-note behavior, and warns that public=true is for customer-visible replies. It also specifies the exact API call, adding transparency. It does not mention permissions or side effects beyond visibility, but such details are not essential here.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence starting with 'WRITE' and provides the core information without waste. The inclusion of the API endpoint is concise and useful.

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?

There is an output schema (not shown), so return values are already covered. The description sufficiently covers the write nature, default behavior, and the caution about public visibility. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, though it could optionally mention authentication prerequisites.

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 schema covers only 33% of parameters (only public has a description). The tool description does not explicitly explain body or ticket_id, though their names are self-explanatory. It does add context to public by saying 'set public=true only to send a customer-visible reply,' which reinforces the schema description. Overall, it adds some semantic value but does not fully compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 'Add a comment to a ticket' with a specific verb and resource, and includes the HTTP endpoint (PUT /api/v2/tickets/{id}). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_ticket, update_ticket, and get_ticket_comments by specifying the exact action.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Defaults to an internal note; set public=true only to send a customer-visible reply.' This tells the agent when to use the default vs. the public flag. It doesn't name alternative tools but the context is clear for this operation.

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