Comment on an issue or PR

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

Annotations already signal a non-read-only, non-idempotent operation. The description goes further by disclosing the required write:issue scope, attribution to the token's owner, and the fact that comments cannot be deleted through this tool. This gives an agent realistic expectations beyond what annotations and schema provide.

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 brief and front-loaded: main action first, then a compact parameter summary, return shape, and the key permission/behavior caveat. Every sentence contributes useful information without filler.

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 write operation with five parameters and no output schema, the description covers the returned fields, the required scope, and the attribution/non-deletion caveat. Together with the fully described schema, an agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly.

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 each parameter is already well documented with types, defaults, constraints, and descriptions. The description's parameter list only restates names and requiredness without adding new field-level meaning, so it does not exceed the schema 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 opening sentence names a specific action and resource: adds a comment to an issue or pull request, and clarifies the shared numbering. This distinguishes it clearly from siblings like forgejo_create_issue and forgejo_update_issue, which modify issues rather than add comments.

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 states the intended context (commenting on issues/PRs), the required write:issue scope, and that the comment is attributed to the token's owner. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when-not-to-use conditions, but the use case is unambiguous given the sibling tool names.

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