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

The description discloses several non-obvious behaviors beyond the annotations: attribution to the signed-in user, persistence in later get_card/get_epic responses, lack of edit support, normalization of nested replies to the thread root, and rejection of cross-resource parent uids. This is exactly the kind of context an agent needs.

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?

The description is dense but every sentence earns its place. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then systematically adds constraints, alternatives, and edge cases. There is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

Given four parameters, a required mutual-exclusion rule, thread semantics, content-format restrictions, and no output schema, the description covers the full complexity of the tool. It even explains how the result is observable (subsequent get_card/get_epic responses) and states an explicit rejection condition for invalid parent uids.

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?

Although the schema already covers all four parameters, the description adds meaning beyond it: mandatory mutual exclusivity of card_id and epic_id, the exact AHM comment-surface restrictions, the 'read get_ahm_spec first' requirement, and the validation behavior for invalid parent_comment_id values. This meaningfully exceeds the schema baseline.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Add a comment to a card or to an epic.' This immediately distinguishes it from sibling create_* tools (create_card, create_epic, create_wiki_page) and from its complement delete_comment. The scope is unmistakable.

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 gives explicit instructions: provide exactly one of card_id or epic_id, read get_ahm_spec first, never use markdown/HTML, and use delete_comment for corrections since comments cannot be edited. It also clarifies thread behavior and rejection rules, leaving little to inference.

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