Add a comment to an event

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint, readOnly false), the description discloses that the call may notify recipients and alter tenant data, and that operator write opt-in plus confirm:true are required. This is exactly the kind of side-effect context an agent needs.

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 compact sentences: action/endpoint, body payload, and prerequisites/side effects. No filler; every line carries useful 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?

Covers endpoint, payload field, confirmation requirement, and side effects for a write operation with no output schema. It does not describe expected success/error response, but this is a minor gap given how much context is provided.

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?

Adds the critical body-field name 'comment', which the generic body schema does not specify. The eventId path parameter and confirm parameter are already documented in the schema, so the description fills an important gap.

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 the action as a specific verb + resource ('Add a comment to an event') and reinforces it with the exact POST endpoint. This clearly differentiates from sibling getters like xmatters_get_event_annotations.

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?

Gives explicit operational context: operator write opt-in, confirm:true, and notification/tenant-data side effects. It doesn't name alternative tools for read-only annotation retrieval, but the usage context is clear enough to avoid misuse.

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