add_pull_request_comment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions supported comment types and the effect of severity but does not disclose side effects, permissions, rate limits, or error conditions. The existence of an output schema partially mitigates this.

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?

Concise and well-structured: a one-line summary followed by a clear list of arguments. Front-loaded with purpose. Slightly verbose in the arg list but necessary given the parameter count.

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 10 parameters with zero schema descriptions and a rich output schema, the description covers the essential semantics for all comment types. Lacks prerequisites and error handling, but overall adequate for the tool's complexity.

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%, but the description comprehensively explains all 10 parameters, including allowed values for severity, line_type, and file_type, and the purpose of parent_comment_id, file_path, line, etc. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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?

Clearly states the tool adds a comment to a pull request and describes three modes: general, inline, and reply. Distinguishes from siblings like get_pull_request_comment (read) and update_pull_request_comment (update).

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?

Provides a hint for creating blocker tasks via severity='BLOCKER', but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_pull_request_task. No 'when not to use' or context about prerequisites.

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