add_comment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key non-obvious trait: comments are customer-visible by default, which is the main behavioral risk. It does not cover notification behavior, editability, or whether the comment can be removed later, 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?

Two sentences, zero waste, with the core action front-loaded and the disambiguation immediately following. Every clause earns its place.

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 small three-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the target resource, and the crucial audience distinction. It leaves minor gaps around side effects (notifications) and what the call returns, but nothing critical to invoking it correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already documents task_id, comment, and is_internal (including its default). The description's visibility remark reinforces the is_internal parameter but adds no syntax, format, or length constraints beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline for fully-documented schemas.

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 and resource ('Add a comment to a task's discussion thread') and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling concept of work notes. An agent can tell it apart from add_work_note 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?

Draws a clear line against alternatives by contrasting comments (communication) with work notes (progress journal), which routes the agent correctly. It stops short of an explicit when-not-to-use rule or naming the add_work_note tool directly, so it is clear context rather than full routing guidance.

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