wrike_create_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. It merely restates that a comment is created without detailing permissions, side effects, return value, or the relationship between taskId and folderId, adding no extra behavioral context beyond the 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, concise sentence that clearly conveys the tool's purpose without any fluff. It is perfectly sized and front-loaded, with every word earning its place.

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?

Despite the schema covering parameters, the description lacks essential operational context: it doesn't clarify the optionality of taskId vs folderId (schema lists neither as required, which is ambiguous for a comment creation), doesn't mention return values, and doesn't address the plainText flag. For a create operation with no annotations and no output schema, this is a notable gap.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all parameters, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's phrase 'on a task or folder' slightly reinforces the taskId and folderId parameters but adds little else; the plainText parameter is not addressed.

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 tool's function with a specific verb ('Create'), resource ('comment'), and scope ('on a task or folder'). This distinguishes it from sibling comment tools like list, get, update, and delete, providing immediate clarity.

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?

Usage is implied by the description—use when creating a comment—but no explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is given. It does not clarify whether tasks or folders are required targets or contrast with update/delete operations, leaving room for ambiguity.

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