add_issue_comment

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

With no annotations present, the description alone must convey behavioral traits. It does not disclose important aspects such as idempotency, required permissions, error handling, or side effects like notification triggers.

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 a single, concise sentence with no extraneous words. However, it is too brief to cover necessary details, sacrificing completeness for brevity.

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?

Despite 100% schema coverage and an output schema, the description lacks essential context: no usage scenarios, no behavioral notes, and no mention of how this tool fits with siblings. The completeness is insufficient for an agent to reliably select and use the 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so each parameter is well-described in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema descriptions, meeting the baseline expectation but not exceeding it.

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 specifies the action ('Add a comment') and the target resource ('GitHub issue or pull request'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'comment_pr_review' which deals with PR reviews, and 'create_issue' which creates issues, not 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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it specify any prerequisites or conditions for use.

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