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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the write nature is covered structurally. The description adds only the intent of the comment, saying nothing about visibility, notifications to problem owners, or whether the comment can be removed.

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 tight sentence covering both the action and its two targets, with no filler. It is front-loaded and every clause carries 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?

For a simple 3-parameter mutation with no output schema, the definition covers the essentials of what and where. It falls short on behavioral side effects and on documenting the required problem_id, leaving modest gaps.

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 67% (body and solution_id are documented, problem_id is not). The description reinforces that the target is either a problem or a specific solution, which clarifies the problem_id/solution_id relationship and implies solution_id is optional, but adds no format or constraint details.

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 gives a specific action (post a comment/ask a clarifying question) and its two possible targets (a problem or a specific solution). It implies creation as opposed to the sibling edit_comment, but never names siblings or states plainly that it adds a new 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 phrase 'ask a clarifying question' suggests an intended use case, and the mention of 'a specific solution' hints at when to target solutions. There is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives (e.g., edit_comment) or any stated preconditions.

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