Add PhishFort Comment

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the requirement of approval, which provides some behavioral context. However, it does not disclose other potential behaviors, such as whether the comment triggers notifications or modifies the incident state.

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 extremely concise (one short sentence). While this brevity is positive, it omits necessary details about parameters and behavior, making it less informative than needed for a tool with many parameters.

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 complexity (7 parameters, 6 required, presence of output schema), the description is too sparse. It fails to explain the approval workflow, comment content expectations, or how the tool integrates with other sibling tools like phishfort_request_incident_action.

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 input schema has 7 parameters (6 required) with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain any parameter's purpose or constraints, leaving the agent to rely solely on parameter names and types, which are insufficient.

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 resource (comment), and the context (to an existing incident after approval). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like phishfort_report_incident or phishfort_request_incident_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?

The description specifies that the tool should be used 'after approval,' providing a clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, leaving some ambiguity about its place in the workflow.

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