Post a comment as the AI

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a genuinely useful behavioral trait: the author is forced to 'ai' and renders with an AI badge, so the agent knows the comment is publicly attributable and distinguishable from human comments. It still omits what the call returns, whether the comment can later be edited or removed, and any permission or failure behavior.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then attribution behavior, then formatting caveats — a sensible order with no filler. The Markdown caveat is slightly verbose but earns its place by preventing a common malformed-output mistake.

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 two-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, attribution, and body formatting, which is the core of correct invocation. It falls short on return value and post-creation lifecycle, leaving the agent unable to tell whether the created comment's id comes back or how to correct a mistake.

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 for two undocumented parameters. It does add real meaning for 'body' (Markdown, real line breaks, literal backslash-n caveat), but 'cardId' is never explained and the body's minLength constraint is unaddressed.

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 ("Post a comment on a card"), and no sibling tool shares that capability, so it is easy to distinguish from the board/card/list operations. The title and first sentence agree, leaving no ambiguity about what gets created.

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?

Usage is implied — comment on a card when you have something to say about it — but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or reference to an alternative (no other comment tool exists, so the omission is minor). The Markdown formatting notes give practical authoring guidance rather than selection guidance.

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