jira_add_comment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only restates the core action. It does not mention side effects, authentication requirements, whether the comment is immediately visible, or what happens on repeated calls. 'Add a comment' implies mutation but adds no behavioral context beyond the tool name.

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?

The description is a single, grammatically complete sentence with no filler or redundant detail. It is front-loaded with the action and target, making it immediately scannable.

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 simple two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description plus schema is arguably callable, but it does not describe the return value, error cases, or whether the comment is created immediately. The lack of annotations and output schema makes the description minimally adequate rather than 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%, so the parameter details are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, such as noting that body is plain text and auto-converted to ADF, which is already in the schema.

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 clearly states the verb 'Add' and the resource 'comment to a Jira issue', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like jira_create_issue or confluence_add_comment. It is not a pure tautology because it specifies the target platform and resource, though 'add a comment' largely mirrors the tool name.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as jira_update_issue, jira_transition_issue, or confluence_add_comment. There is no mention of prerequisite context, exclusions, or conditions that would route an agent to a different sibling.

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