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

Annotations confirm non-destructive and non-open-world, and the description adds genuinely useful context the annotations cannot carry: the comment is published under the publisher's own name (an identity/attribution constraint that should change how the agent writes) and that mentioned people are notified. It stops short of saying whether comments are editable or deletable after posting.

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 sentences, zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the behavioral caveats. 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?

With no output schema and full parameter coverage, the description only needs to convey purpose plus behavioral caveats, and it does so for a simple mutating tool. It is slightly thin on post-conditions (edit/delete, threading behavior), but nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 all five parameters are already documented in the schema (including that mention_ids comes from list_kanban_members). The description only adds the side effect of mention_ids; it adds nothing about body formatting or parent_comment_id semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3.

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 ('Post a comment on a card') in the first sentence, which cleanly separates it from the read-side sibling get_kanban_comments and from card-level mutations like update_kanban_card. An agent needs no schema inspection to know what this does.

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 implied rather than stated: 'Mentioned people are notified' hints that mention_ids is the notify path and the optional params are opt-in, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or a named alternative such as replying via parent_comment_id versus posting top-level. Adequate but with a clear routing gap.

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