create_comment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral transparency. It only states 'Add a comment', a write operation, but does not disclose potential errors, side effects, return format, or behavior when both IDs are provided.

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 concise, with two sentences and an Args list, all essential. It front-loads the purpose and avoids redundancy, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple tool with an output schema, but it omits usage examples, error handling, and return value details. Given the tool's mutation nature and no annotations, more completeness would improve agent decision-making.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description adds significant value by listing parameters and explaining the mutual exclusivity of task_id and project_id. It clarifies context beyond the schema, though it lacks details on content format or default values for IDs.

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 verb 'Add' and the resource 'comment to a task or project', and includes the crucial constraint about providing one of task_id or project_id. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_comments.

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 specifies when to use the tool (to add a comment) and the prerequisite of providing either task_id or project_id. However, it does not explicitly discuss when not to use it or mention alternative tools for reading comments.

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