swsd_add_incident_comment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false (write operation) and destructiveHint=false (non-destructive). The description adds the explicit warning 'WRITE — does not retry on transient failure,' which is useful but somewhat redundant with the readOnlyHint. It lacks detail on what happens on failure (no retry) or any side effects beyond the comment creation, but the annotations cover the safety profile, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 and front-loaded: it states the primary action first, then the key parameter behavior, then the alternative tool, and finally the safety note. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler. It could be slightly more concise by moving the warning to the end, but it's already efficient.

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 moderate complexity (3 params, no output schema, annotations cover safety), the description is nearly complete: it explains the action, the parameter semantics, when to use the alternative, and the failure behavior. The only gap is that it doesn't describe what the response looks like (since no output schema), but for a simple add operation this may not be critical. A 4 is justified.

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 schema already documents all parameters. The description reinforces the meaning of is_private (default false, internal-only) and explicitly adds the auto-detection logic for incident_id (digit count), which is a valuable behavioral nuance not fully captured in the schema's description. However, body is plain text/HTML, which the schema already states, so the description adds minimal extra value.

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 (add a comment), the target resource (SWSD incident), and the key functional detail (visibility via is_private). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool swsd_update_comment by explicitly naming it as the alternative for editing comments, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 states when to use this tool (to add a comment) and when not to (to edit a comment, use swsd_update_comment). It also explains the behavioral nuance of is_private (default false = visible to requester), which is a clear usage guideline for when to set it to true for internal-only comments.

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