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

The annotations already declare non-idempotent, open-world, non-destructive behavior, and the description goes further by naming the side effects: visibility to project members, forwarding to webhooks/chat notifications if configured, the fact that mentions do not notify, and that a second call creates a second comment. Signature attribution and the write-permission requirement add real context. It stops short of describing the returned payload or failure modes.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then side effects, then parameter nuances, then a permission note. Every clause carries information, though the mentions section is compressed into clipped semicolon fragments that read as a spec dump rather than prose.

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 4-parameter write tool with full schema coverage, published annotations, and no output schema, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing: permission requirement, visibility, notification fan-out, mention handling, and duplicate-post behavior are all disclosed.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema does not carry: what `mentions` accepts (names or emails), how non-members are treated (silently ignored), and that mentions are notification-silent. Character limit and plain-text/line-break rules for `body` are also restated usefully.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ("Adds a comment ... to a task") and pins down additional attributes: plain text, line breaks allowed, 10000-character cap, attributed to the connected account. It is trivially distinguishable from planitude_list_comments and from the other mutation siblings.

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?

Usage is strongly implied by the purpose, and the description supplies useful preconditions ("Requires write permission") plus an implicit when-not for mentions ("people outside the project are ignored", "Mentions do not send notifications"). It never explicitly states when to prefer this tool over an alternative or when not to post at all, so it sits at implied-contEXT guidance rather than an explicit routing rule.

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