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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds a meaningful permission-related nuance ('Commenting on anyone's item is fine — unlike assignment'), but it does not disclose other behavioral details such as whether the comment is appended to a thread, whether notifications are sent, or whether the operation is reversible. For a simple mutation tool this is acceptable but not rich.

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 sentences with no filler: the first states the action and target format, the second clarifies permission scope, and the third gives routing guidance. It is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 two-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage, the description covers what the target is, how it is identified, who is allowed to use it, and when to prefer an alternative. The only minor gap is that it does not explicitly mention that existing comments can be modified via update_comment, but that is not necessary for invoking this tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters fully. The description repeats the target key format and item types but adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pairing: 'Add a comment to an epic, task or question' and identifies the exact key format. It distinguishes itself from create_open_question by contrasting commenting with asking a question, and it is clearly distinct from update_comment by focusing on addition rather than modification.

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 explicitly says when to use an alternative: 'Use a question (create_open_question) instead when you need an answer before the work can finish.' It also clarifies that commenting on anyone's item is allowed, unlike assignment, giving the agent a clear green light without needing to infer permissions.

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