swsd_add_incident_comment

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: 'WRITE — does not retry on transient failure', which tells the agent to handle failures itself rather than assume retry semantics. It stops short of describing auth requirements or the response payload.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the privacy flag, then the edit alternative and write caveat. No filler; every clause carries routing or behavioral 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?

With annotations present and no output schema, the description covers the essential unknowns: write semantics, no-retry behavior, privacy toggle, and the edit path. It does not say what the call returns (e.g., a new comment id), which is a minor gap for a create operation.

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% and the schema already documents is_private's default and incident_id's id-vs-number auto-detection. The description restates the is_private default but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Add a comment to a SWSD incident') and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling swsd_update_comment, which handles post-hoc edits. An agent can route between add vs. edit without opening either schema.

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?

Names the alternative (swsd_update_comment) and the condition that selects it ('to edit a comment after posting'), and gives explicit guidance on when to set is_private. It does not cover interaction with swsd_list_incident_comments, but the create-vs-edit routing is the important one and it is stated.

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