ACC.MCP

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 successfully indicates this is a write operation (implied by 'Add') and specifies an important permission requirement. However, it lacks details about rate limits, error conditions, response format, or whether the operation is idempotent, which would be valuable 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 extremely concise - just two sentences with zero wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides the critical permission requirement. Every element earns its place, and the warning symbol appropriately highlights the important constraint.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides the essential purpose and permission requirement but lacks information about what the tool returns, error handling, or other behavioral aspects. Given the complexity of creating a comment in an issue tracking system, more context about the operation's effects would be helpful.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all four parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation but doesn't provide extra value. The description's permission warning relates to tool usage rather than parameter meaning.

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 specific action ('Add a comment') and target resource ('to an issue'), using a precise verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'aps_issues_get_comments' (which retrieves comments) and 'aps_issues_update' (which modifies the issue itself).

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 explicit context about when to use it by stating the required permission ('data:write' in APS_SCOPE'), which is crucial guidance. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternative tools for related actions, keeping it from a perfect score.

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