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

Annotations already carry destructiveHint=true, so the write/side-effect profile is declared in structured data; the description's 'WRITE:' restates it and adds the endpoint but not much else. It does not clarify notification side effects, permissions, or rate limits, so it adds only modest context beyond annotations.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the operation type and resource, then the key required-argument fact and the REST mapping. No filler; 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 comment-creation tool with a fully-described 4-param schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose, required params, and endpoint. It leaves minor gaps around notification behavior and permission requirements, but nothing an agent strictly needs to invoke it 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 all four parameters (task_id, comment_text, assignee, notify_all) are already documented in the schema. The description only restates that comment_text is required and task_id is a path param, adding no new semantics. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Starts with an explicit 'WRITE: add a comment to a task' verb+resource, and the REST endpoint (POST /task/{task_id}/comment) confirms the operation. An agent can immediately distinguish this mutation tool from the read-side sibling clickup_get_task_comments.

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 'WRITE:' prefix implicitly signals this is the mutating counterpart to the read comment tools, but the description never explicitly says when to use this versus clickup_get_task_comments or clickup_get_list_comments, nor states any prerequisites. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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