kaiten_add_comment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation and non-idempotency profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether the comment is attributed to the caller, whether it triggers notifications, or what happens on repeat calls. With annotations doing all the work, the description earns little credit here.

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 zero filler; nothing is wasted. It is well structured but so short that brevity shades into under-specification rather than crispness.

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 not be explained. However, for a non-idempotent, open-world mutation with two fully undocumented parameters, the description omits the parameter context and any behavioral notes an agent would need to invoke it confidently. It is too thin relative to the tool's complexity.

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 0%, so both parameters (card_id, text) carry no documentation in the schema. The description only vaguely implies that 'text' is a string comment body and says nothing about card_id's meaning, format, or how to obtain a valid card identifier. This is a clear case where the description needed to compensate for the schema and did not.

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 ('Add a text comment to a card'), which cleanly separates it from sibling comment tools like kaiten_list_comments, kaiten_update_comment, and kaiten_delete_comment. It does not explicitly name or contrast with those siblings, but the verb alone is enough to disambiguate.

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 no conditions for when to use this versus kaiten_update_comment or kaiten_add_card_tag, no prerequisites (must the card exist, must the user have access), and no exclusions. Usage is only implied by the verb 'Add'.

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