Add comment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write/non-destructive nature is covered. The description usefully adds that the comment is attributed to the token's user, but says nothing about required board/card permissions, whether the comment can be edited or deleted later, or failure behavior on inaccessible cards.

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 tight sentence with the essential action and actor front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly the reason usage guidance is absent.

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 two-parameter, non-destructive write tool with a fully covered schema and no output schema, the description covers the core action and authorship context. Minor gaps around permission prerequisites and error behavior keep it from being fully complete.

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% and both parameters are documented there (text allows markdown, cardId accepts a short link or full URL), so the description adds nothing beyond it. Per the baseline rule for high coverage, a 3 is appropriate.

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 (post) and resource (a comment on a card), and clarifies the authorship model ('as the token's user'), which no sibling tool covers. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like trello_get_card or trello_set_checklist_item, so it stops short of a 5.

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 when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives or when this is the wrong tool (e.g., versus adding a checklist item). The intent is inferable from the verb, but nothing in the text explicitly guides selection.

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