add_comment

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

Annotations indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive nature (destructiveHint=false). The description adds useful behavioral context: comments are customer-visible and require WRITE_ENABLED=true. No contradictions with annotations.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and includes a critical prerequisite. No unnecessary words.

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 simple mutation tool with three well-described parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential action and a prerequisite. It could mention return value or error handling, but the annotations (openWorldHint=true) allow for some vagueness.

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 fully describes all three parameters (table, sys_id, comment). The description adds value by specifying that the comment is 'customer-visible', clarifying its nature beyond the schema.

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 ('Add a customer-visible comment') and the resource ('any ITSM record'), with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_work_note by specifying visibility.

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 implies when to use (customer-visible comments) and provides a prerequisite (WRITE_ENABLED=true). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the context is clear enough given the sibling list.

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