add_comment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that comments are customer-visible by default and explains the author_kind distinction. It does not mention permissions or success feedback, but for a simple write operation this is adequate context.

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 three concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the purpose, then adds differentiation and usage guidance. Every sentence contributes to understanding.

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 simple task with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential context: purpose, customer visibility, and author semantics. It does not explain the exact return value or prerequisites, but these are not critical for this tool's usage, and the schema covers parameter details.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the practical use of author_kind (relaying user words vs. AI's own) and clarifying that comments are customer-visible by default, which aligns with the is_internal parameter. This goes slightly beyond the schema descriptions.

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 the tool's action: 'Add a comment to a task's discussion thread.' It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from the related work notes tool by contrasting comments with the progress journal.

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 explicitly contrasts this tool with work notes, clarifying when to use comments vs. the alternative. It also provides specific guidance on when to set author_kind to 'human' versus 'ai', making usage straightforward.

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