add-comments

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

Annotations indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond these hints: it reveals that the tool supports batch creation ('multiple comments') and enforces a mutual-exclusivity constraint between taskId and projectId. This validation rule is not visible in the schema's required fields, making the description's disclosure important.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences with no redundant language. The first sentence states the primary action, and the second provides the key constraint. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words.

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?

Given that an output schema exists to explain return values and the input schema describes each parameter in detail, the description covers the essential aspects: the batch nature, target types (tasks or projects), and the one-of requirement. It does not delve into error handling or special values like 'inbox' for projectId, but these are already handled in the schema, making the description sufficient for a straightforward creation tool.

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 schema provides full coverage (100%) of the `comments` parameter and its subfields, including descriptions for taskId, projectId, and content. However, the description adds a critical semantic rule: each comment requires either taskId or projectId. The schema alone marks both as optional, so this clarification is essential for correct invocation.

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 action: 'Add multiple comments to tasks or projects.' The verb 'Add' with the resource 'comments' is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like find-comments (read) and update-comments (modify). It also implies a batch operation, which sets it apart from single-comment tools.

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 an important usage constraint: 'Each comment must specify either taskId or projectId.' This tells the agent a prerequisite for using the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., update-comments for editing), so the usage context is only implied by the verb.

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