add_comment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Post a comment', indicating a write operation, but lacks details on permissions, side effects (e.g., updates timestamps), or any restrictions. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the purpose and typical use cases.

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 tool has 2 required parameters and no output schema or annotations. The description covers the action and typical use cases, but does not mention return values or confirmation. For a simple comment-posting action, this is largely adequate, though slight improvement could mention success indication.

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% for both parameters (card and text), so the schema already fully documents them. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline.

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 'Post a comment to a card' with specific verb and resource, and adds context 'useful for asking a clarifying question or logging progress while solving a task'. This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_cards, get_card, etc.

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 explicit use cases ('asking a clarifying question or logging progress'), giving clear context on when to use. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or suggest alternatives, but the guidance is sufficient for a focused tool.

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