add_request_comment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It states that the tool adds a comment (write operation) and explains the public visibility. However, it does not disclose any destructive effects, authorization requirements, or rate limits. The output schema exists but is not mentioned. The public parameter explanation adds some 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?

Highly concise and well-structured: one-sentence action, then parameter details in a clear list. No redundant or wasted words. Front-loaded with the main action, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 add operation with 3 parameters and existing output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains all parameters and the key distinction of public visibility. It does not cover prerequisites or error handling, but that is acceptable given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It does so thoroughly: explains issue_id_or_key with example 'X000', body as plain text or Jira wiki markup, and public as true/false with clear meaning. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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?

Description clearly states the action: 'Add a comment to a customer request.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_request_comment and list_request_comments by focusing on the add operation. The public parameter is explained, differentiating between customer-visible and internal notes.

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?

Provides clear guidance on when to use public=true vs false, which is key for this tool. Does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the sibling list includes related tools, so context is implied. Could be more direct about avoiding use when wanting to retrieve comments.

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