Create a team comment on a ticket

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals that comments are internal (not customer-visible), which is key behavior. However, it does not mention idempotency, authentication requirements, side effects (e.g., notifications), or whether multiple comments are allowed. Additional detail would improve transparency.

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 concise, consisting of two short sentences. It is front-loaded with the primary action and resource, and every word adds value. There is no extraneous 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations) and the availability of sibling tools with overlapping functionality, the description provides adequate but minimal context. It covers purpose and visibility but lacks details on preconditions (e.g., valid ticket), error cases, or return value. Completeness is sufficient for basic use but leaves gaps for an agent needing robust understanding.

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%, and the description fails to explain any of the 4 parameters. While parameter names and schema constraints offer some hints, the description adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides. For a tool with 4 parameters, the description should at least clarify the role of each parameter (e.g., message_box_id, operator_id) to aid correct invocation.

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 ('Post') and the resource ('team comment to a ticket'). It also distinguishes itself from customer-visible comments by noting the comment is internal, making the purpose highly specific and unambiguous.

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 explains that the comment is not visible to the customer and is used for internal discussion, providing clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it (e.g., for customer replies) or reference alternatives like reply_mail, which is available among sibling tools.

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