add_comment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the high-level action and does not mention required permissions, that a card must exist, or the response format. This leaves the agent without crucial side-effect information for a mutation tool.

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. The second sentence 'Use this tool to add notes or feedback to a card' partially restates the first but adds the clarification of 'notes or feedback.' It is concise and front-loaded, though not entirely free of redundancy.

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-comment tool, the description covers the core purpose. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it does not explain what the response will be or any prerequisites (e.g., valid cardId). The high schema coverage for parameters mitigates the gap, but the tool remains under-specified for behavioral 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 input schema describes all four parameters (cardId, text, fields, detailLevel) with 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 verb and resource: 'Add a comment to a card.' It further clarifies the use case with 'notes or feedback.' While it doesn't explicitly compare to sibling tools like add_attachment or get_comments, the 'comment' terminology sufficiently distinguishes it.

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 includes an explicit usage directive: 'Use this tool to add notes or feedback to a card.' This provides a clear context for when to invoke the tool. However, it does not mention alternatives or exclusions, such as using add_attachment for non-text content.

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