clokio_add_task_comment

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses valuable behavioral details: omitting author_employee_code attributes the comment to the API key owner as 'External System,' and markdown tables are not rendered. These are not inferable from the schema or annotations and help set expectations.

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 sentences deliver the core action, an important default behavior, and formatting guidance with no filler. The essential purpose is front-loaded, and every clause adds value.

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 covers the action, required parameters, optional attribution, and formatting limitations. It does not describe the return value, but for a simple add-comment mutation this is a minor omission given the tool's simplicity and lack of an output schema.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining author_employee_code's default behavior and body formatting constraints. The id parameter is not explicitly described, but its role as the task identifier is strongly implied by the tool name and required status.

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 and resource: 'Add a comment to a task.' This clearly states what the tool does and differentiates it from sibling tools like list_task_comments or update_task without ambiguity.

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 intended use case is clear from the opening phrase 'Add a comment to a task.' It also provides practical guidance on author attribution and body formatting, giving context for correct usage. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but none are needed for this straightforward action.

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