add_comment

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds the audience nuance ('for the humans watching the board') but does not disclose additional behaviors like notification, permissions, or whether comments append or replace. Thus, it meets the basic bar but adds limited behavioral detail.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every phrase serves a purpose. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and the key alternative without wasteful text.

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?

Given the simple parameter set (2 required parms, fully documented), the presence of an output schema, and clear annotations, the description is complete. It explains the purpose, audience, and relevant alternative tool, leaving no critical gaps for an agent to invoke 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 fully documents both task_id and text. The description does not add any extra parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 function: 'Leave a comment on a task.' It specifies the content types ('a question, a blocker, or progress context') and distinguishes from the sibling tool add_result by directing users to use that for actual deliverables.

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 says 'Use add_result for the actual deliverable,' providing a clear when-not-to-use and naming the alternative. It also gives context for when to use: to leave qualitative updates for humans watching the board.

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