Create Task Comment

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that comments can be structured with explicit user-ID mentions, which is a behavioral capability beyond the basic safety flags. However, it does not disclose side effects like notifications, return values, or permissions, so it only partially enhances transparency.

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, concise, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose and key capability. Every word adds value, and it avoids tautology or unnecessary elaboration.

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 complex input schemas with two distinct modes and several optional parameters, but the description is minimal. It does not mention return values, what happens on success/failure, or when to choose plain text versus structured mode beyond the bare capability. With no output schema and sparse annotations, the agent is left without critical operational context.

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?

The schema has two alternatives (plain text or structured comment array) with optional flags. The description helps map 'plain-text or structured' to these alternatives and 'user-ID mentions' to the tag object, adding semantic value. But it does not explain optional parameters like notify_all, workspace_id, or custom_task_ids, which remain undocumented in both schema and description.

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 ('Add'), names the resource ('comment'), and the target ('Task'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_task_comments. It also specifies the two supported modes ('plain-text or structured') and explicit user-ID mentions, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 implies clear usage: use this tool to add comments to a task. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is so direct that an agent can infer when to invoke it. No when-not guidance is provided, so it falls short of a 5.

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