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 profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on visibility of the comment to other users, permission requirements, or duplicate-comment behavior (relevant given idempotentHint=false).

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 short sentence with zero padding and the resource up front, which is structurally sound. It is arguably under-specified rather than inefficiently verbose for a tool where the schema documents nothing.

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, and the operation is simple. Still, with 0% schema coverage and no annotations-redundant behavioral detail, the description falls short of fully equipping an agent to invoke it confidently.

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 the description carries the burden, and it only implicitly names the two inputs via 'text comment' and 'card'. It provides no details on text format (markdown? mentions?), length constraints, or card_id validity beyond the schema's numeric bounds.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Add a text comment to a card'), so an agent immediately knows the operation and target entity. However, it offers no differentiation from sibling comment tools such as kaiten_update_comment, kaiten_list_comments, or kaiten_delete_comment — the 'add' vs 'update' distinction is left implicit.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus kaiten_update_comment or kaiten_list_comments, and no mention of prerequisites (e.g., the card must exist, the user must have access). The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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