add_pr_comment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool adds comments but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether comments are editable/deletable, rate limits, or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It could be slightly more structured by separating general vs. inline comment guidance, but it avoids waste and is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a mutation tool with 6 parameters. It lacks details on behavioral context (e.g., auth needs, error handling) and doesn't explain return values. For its complexity, it should provide more guidance to be fully helpful.

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 all parameters. The description adds minimal value by hinting at the purpose of 'path' and 'line' for inline comments, but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what the schema offers. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Add a comment') and resource ('to a pull request'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'list_pr_comments' or 'update_pull_request'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'request_changes' might also involve commenting).

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 implies usage by mentioning 'general comment or an inline comment', suggesting when to use path/line parameters. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'request_changes' or 'update_pull_request', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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