add_comment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates the mutation ('Add') and notes Markdown formatting support, but does not disclose side effects beyond the obvious addition, such as permissions required, whether the issue must exist, or what the response contains. This is a moderate gap but acceptable for a straightforward action.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the Markdown formatting note is a useful addition that earns its place.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with complete schema descriptions and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. It states the action and formatting capability. Minor omissions like return value or confirmation behavior are not critical for successful invocation.

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 both parameters are fully documented in the schema itself. The description only repeats the Markdown support detail already present in the comment parameter description, adding no new semantic value beyond the schema baseline.

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 a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('comment to a Jira issue'), making the tool's purpose immediately obvious. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, none of which perform comment creation, so there is no ambiguity.

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 clearly defines the context of use: adding a comment to a Jira issue. While it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, no sibling tool overlaps with this functionality, so the usage context is clear and sufficient.

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