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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — it does not disclose that comments are customer-visible by default, that the `internal` flag makes a comment private, or whether creating a comment triggers notifications/subscriber emails, which is the key behavioral risk for this write tool.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording, which is structurally clean. However, the terseness crosses into under-specification — nothing is said about the public/internal distinction or expected behavior after creation.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the schema fully documents parameters. What is missing is behavioral context: visibility of the resulting comment and whether the internal flag changes who can see it, which matters for a write tool that posts customer-facing content.

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 three parameters (feature_request_id, comment, internal) are already documented in the schema, including the internal flag's purpose. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 the correct score here.

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 verb and resource ("Create a new comment") and scopes it to a feature request, so the operation is immediately identifiable. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings like update_comment, list_comments, or get_comment, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer this over update_comment, and no note about prerequisites such as needing an existing feature request or write permission. The agent must infer all usage context from the purpose sentence alone.

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