add_comment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description's real contribution is "internal", disclosing visibility scope that the annotations do not express. It says nothing about side effects such as notifications to the ticket requester or whether the comment is editable afterwards.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. It is tight, though the brevity is partly the source of the tool's specification gaps rather than a virtue in itself.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, but the tool writes data and both of its required parameters are entirely undocumented. For a mutation with 0% schema coverage, one sentence plus a policy tag leaves an agent guessing about input format and side effects.

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 0%: both parameters appear only as bare titles ("Body", "Ticket Id"). The description must compensate and does not — no format for ticket_id, no hint about markdown, length limits, or whether the body is escaped or sanitised.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Add an ... comment to a ticket") and adds the qualifier "internal", which tells an agent the audience is staff-only rather than the customer. It stops short of differentiating itself from siblings such as update_ticket, which could also plausibly carry commentary.

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 bracketed "[policy: allow]" tag is a governance marker, not guidance about when to call the tool. The verb "Add" implies use on an existing ticket, but there is no statement of preconditions (ticket must exist, whether the caller is the requester) and no reference to any alternative tool.

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