aps_issues_create_comment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses the required scope (data:write), which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not mention idempotency, rate limits, or side effects (e.g., whether the issue is modified).

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, with one sentence and a warning. It is front-loaded with the action and includes scope information without unnecessary 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 4 parameters, 100% schema coverage, no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description covers purpose and scope but misses return value/confirmation details. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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?

All 4 parameters have schema descriptions with 100% coverage. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score 3 applies. It does not clarify parameter relationships or provide additional context.

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 'Add a comment to an issue' with a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('comment to an issue'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like aps_issues_create (creates issue) and aps_issues_get_comments (reads 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 a clear usage prerequisite ('Requires data:write in APS_SCOPE'), but does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use. However, the action is well-defined, and context signals indicate no confusion with siblings.

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