add_comment

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It goes beyond the schema by explaining that plain text input is automatically converted to ADF format, which is a non-obvious and important behavior. It could mention persistence or permissions, but the ADF conversion note is substantial.

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 two short sentences with no filler or repetition. The primary action is front-loaded, and the key conversion behavior follows immediately.

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 tool with two required scalar parameters and no nested objects, the description plus schema cover the essential invocation details. It lacks explicit output or alternative-tool guidance, but those are minor gaps for an add-comment operation.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds real semantic value for the body parameter by clarifying that the agent can pass plain text and does not need to compose ADF manually, which goes beyond the schema's simple 'comment content (text)' 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 states a specific action—adding a comment to an issue—and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like update_issue or transition_issue. It also mentions a unique behavior: automatic conversion to ADF format, which adds clarity beyond 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 intended use is implied clearly: add a comment to an issue. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it, leaving some routing to inference.

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