Comment on a board

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

Annotation coverage is broad (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=false), yet the description still adds real behavioral context beyond it: comments never appear in exports, are signed with the agent name, appear live for everyone, and the call returns the comment id plus mentions. It stops short of noting that repeat calls create separate comments or any permission requirements, so it is strong but not complete.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and each subsequent sentence contributes a distinct fact (placement, mentions, export invisibility, attribution, return value, alternative tool). No filler or restatement of the name/title.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by stating what comes back (comment id and who was mentioned). Combined with the placement, mention, and visibility semantics, an agent has everything needed to invoke this correctly and interpret the result.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: the "@Name" mention syntax, the fact that "on" accepts an id or its text, and that omitting x/y/on falls back to free space. That is genuine semantic value on top of the structured fields.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("Leave a comment on a board") and immediately scopes the targeting modes (pinned to a node/item or at a point). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling reply_comment, so an agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use ("ask or suggest instead of changing the person's work") and when-to-use-something-else ("to answer an existing thread use reply_comment"). It also carves out a domain boundary — comments are for talking about the board, not content — which prevents misuse.

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