add_solution

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly mentions a key side effect: 'le clôture automatiquement selon la config GLPI' (automatically closes it according to GLPI config). However, it does not disclose other potential behaviors such as permissions, reversibility, or what happens if the ticket is already closed, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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 and front-loaded, consisting of two short sentences that state the primary function and a key side effect. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 simplicity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the main action and one parameter, but it does not mention what the tool returns, any prerequisites (e.g., ticket must exist), or error cases. It is adequate but has notable omissions for a complete 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning only for solution_type_id ('ID du type de solution si applicable'), but does not explain ticket_id or content, which are essential. The description provides minimal added value beyond the schema's parameter names.

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: 'Poste une solution sur un ticket' (Post a solution on a ticket), which specifies the verb and resource. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like add_followup (which posts a follow-up) and get_solution (which retrieves a solution) by focusing on posting a solution, not just any comment.

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 provides clear context: it is used to post a solution on a ticket, and it automatically closes the ticket depending on GLPI configuration. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the action and auto-close behavior imply when it should be used (when a solution is ready to be submitted).

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