task_comment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that a comment never edits task content (purely additive), but says nothing about permissions, whether comments are editable/removable, or how they are returned.

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, front-loaded with purpose and scoping. The second sentence carries a slightly editorial tone but still earns its place by justifying the tool's distinct value.

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 3-param mutation-free tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers intent and the `item` selector but omits return behavior and any constraints on comment content or targets. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It meaningfully explains the optional `item` parameter's role as a key targeting a checklist item, but `uid` and `body` semantics are left to name inference.

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?

States a specific verb (comment) and resource (a task or one of its items), and clarifies the `item` selector. It is distinguishable from the sibling `task_item`/`task` tools, though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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?

Implies when to use it — capture rationale the checklist can't hold, like why an item is blocked or what a review said. But there is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative, so the routing is left to inference.

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