add-comments

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

The description discloses that the tool modifies data (adds comments) and optionally notifies collaborators, which is behavioral information beyond the annotation (readOnlyHint false) and adds context. It does not mention potential side effects like activity logging, but the annotation already implies mutation, and the description covers the main behavior.

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 concise, consisting of two clear sentences. It avoids redundancy and conveys the essential information efficiently.

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 description does not mention what the tool returns (no output schema is provided) or any error conditions. While it covers the main functionality, the lack of return value information and potential pitfalls leaves some gaps, but it is adequate for a simple add 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?

The description adds a critical constraint that each comment must specify either taskId or projectId, which is not enforced by the schema. Other parameters like content and notifyUsers are already fully described in the schema, so the description focuses on the key requirement.

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 action (add multiple comments), the target (tasks or projects), and the optional notification behavior. It distinguishes from sibling tools like update-comments and find-comments by explicitly using 'add' and mentioning multiple comments.

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 provides clear context about what the tool does and the constraint that each comment must specify either taskId or projectId. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like update-comments or find-comments, but the intent is implied by the action verb.

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