swsd_add_incident_comment

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explicitly states this is a WRITE operation and that it does not retry on transient failures. This complements the `readOnlyHint=false` annotation and provides critical operational insight.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences that convey purpose, parameter usage, alternative tool, and behavioral note. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or 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?

Given the tool's simplicity, good annotations, and full schema coverage, the description covers the essential aspects. It misses specifying the return value, but given no output schema, this is a minor gap. Otherwise, it is well-rounded.

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?

Input schema covers all three parameters with descriptions. The description adds extra semantic value for `is_private`, explaining its effect on visibility and default behavior. No additional detail is needed for `incident_id` or `body` given schema coverage, but the added context warrants a score above baseline.

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's purpose: 'Add a comment to a SWSD incident.' It specifies a concrete verb and resource, and distinguishes from the sibling tool `swsd_update_comment` by explicitly directing users to use that tool for editing, ensuring no confusion.

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 provides guidance on when to use the `is_private` parameter and directs users to `swsd_update_comment` for editing after posting. While it lacks explicit 'when not to use' instructions, the context of sibling tools and the clear alternative is sufficient for most agents.

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