jira_add_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 of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without revealing any behavioral traits: it does not mention that it modifies the issue, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on success or failure, or any authentication requirements. The transparency is therefore minimal.

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 sentence: 'Add a comment to a Jira issue.' It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no extraneous information. Every word contributes to the meaning, making it an exemplar of brevity.

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 tool has only two parameters and no output schema, so the description is not required to explain return values. However, since there are no annotations, the description should ideally disclose behavioral aspects such as success response or side effects. The description is complete for purpose but lacks depth for a mutation tool.

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%: both 'id' and 'comment' have descriptions in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. It does not clarify the format of the comment (beyond 'Markdown' already in schema) or how the id should be supplied.

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 to a Jira issue.' It uses a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('comment'), and the target ('Jira issue') is immediately clear. This distinguishes it from siblings like jira_fetch_comments, which retrieves comments, and jira_update_issue, which updates issue fields.

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: use this tool when you need to add a comment to a Jira issue. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or provide exclusions, such as noting that jira_fetch_comments should be used for retrieving comments. The guidance is minimal but present.

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