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

Annotations already establish this is a non-destructive, non-idempotent write with open-world access. The description adds real value on top: it clarifies that comments can be internal-only via isInternal and names the required auth scope (`feedback:comments:write`), which the annotations cannot convey.

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 short fragments: action, optional-flag semantics, and auth scope. Front-loaded and every sentence has a distinct purpose with no filler.

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 mutation tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action, the key optional parameter, and the permission requirement. It omits what the call returns (e.g., comment ID) and failure modes, which is a minor gap.

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 40%, and the two undocumented properties (content, shortId) are obvious from name, while the description explains the non-obvious isInternal flag. That covers the semantic gap reasonably but adds nothing about shortId format or content length limits, so a baseline 3 is fair.

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 and resource ('Add a comment to a bug report'), which cleanly separates it from the request-oriented sibling fr_comment_request. It does not explicitly name that sibling or spell out the bug-vs-request distinction, keeping it just below 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?

The isInternal flag's internal-only use case is explained, and the required API-key scope is given. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer this over fr_comment_request or fr_get_bug-style read paths, so usage is only implied.

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