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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read, non-destructive mutation. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: the comment is attributed to the token's user, and it is visible to anyone who can open the task, including users via a borrowed board. This visibility/attribution detail is not in the annotations or schema.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and then the key behavioral facts. No filler or redundancy.

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 append-style mutation with fully documented parameters and no output schema requirement, the description covers what an agent needs: what it does, who it is attributed to, and who can see it. Only minor gaps (e.g., edit/delete semantics of the comment) remain.

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%, with clear descriptions for cuerpo, task_id, and workspace_id (including the 'omit if token has fixed workspace' hint). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Escribe un comentario en una tarea") that is unambiguous and clearly distinct from the read sibling get_task_comments. An agent knows exactly what the tool creates without opening the schema.

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 tool's purpose implies when to reach for it (adding commentary to a task), but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are named. Usage is only implied by the verb.

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