add_comment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the write/non-destructive profile is covered. The description does add one genuinely useful trait beyond them — internal notes are visible only to support staff — but says nothing about permissions required, whether a public comment notifies the customer, or any rate limits.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler, and the visibility constraint for the default mode is front-loaded where an agent will see it before deciding on 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?

For a low-complexity, 3-parameter write tool with annotations covering safety and an output schema covering return values, the description addresses the main failure mode (posting a support-only note thinking it is public). It could still mention the public/internal routing more explicitly, but nothing essential is missing.

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 coverage is only 33% (ticket_id is the one documented parameter), so the description must carry weight — and it does, explaining that 'internal' defaults to a support-staff-only note, which the schema does not convey at all. The body parameter remains unexplained, which keeps it from a 5.

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+resource ('Add a comment'), so the action is unambiguous, but it never says the comment attaches to a ticket — the reader must infer that from the ticket_id parameter and the sibling set (search_tickets, get_ticket, update_ticket). No sibling differentiation is offered, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus update_ticket or the other siblings, and no prerequisites are given. The note about internal notes implies a choice between internal and customer-visible comments, but that choice is never framed as guidance.

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