addPullRequestComment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the main mutation (adding a comment) and the three modes, but does not mention permissions, side effects, return values, or constraints like the need for the file to be in the diff for inline comments. It adds some context beyond the schema but not comprehensive.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource, then efficiently enumerates the three modes with a pointer to the key parameter. No filler or redundant content.

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?

The description is adequate for a tool with moderate complexity and 100% schema coverage, but with no output schema and no annotations, it does not explain return behavior or other important context like authentication. It is complete enough for basic use but leaves some gaps.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds conceptual value by grouping parameters into comment types (general, inline, reply), which helps understand the relationship between `inline` and `parent`. However, it does not add specific parameter details beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('comment to a pull request'), and explicitly distinguishes three modes: general, inline, and reply. This clearly differentiates it from sibling comment tools like updatePullRequestComment or resolveComment.

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 provides clear context by listing the three distinct usage scenarios (general, inline, reply) and hints that `parent` is used for replies. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide exclusion criteria, but the modes serve as implicit guidance.

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