add_comment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only states the action ('Add a comment') without mentioning side effects, error conditions, or requirements beyond English. It does not explain what happens if taskId/taskNumber are missing or how existing comments are affected. This is a significant gap for a write operation.

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, front-loading the core action and then adding usage timing and a constraint. The three sentences are efficient with no wasted words. Slightly longer than strictly necessary but well-structured.

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?

For a mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core action and usage timing but omits important context such as return value, error handling, or prerequisites like needing an active session (though params suggest auto-from-session). It is adequate but not fully complete for an agent to predict all outcomes.

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 all five parameters are already documented with descriptions. The description adds no extra parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting, and the description does not contradict or enrich it.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Add a comment to a task') which is clear and unambiguous. Does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like list_comments or update_task, but the action is distinct enough that an agent can infer its role. The usage context ('Call AFTER making changes...') reinforces its purpose.

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 explicit temporal guidance ('Call AFTER making changes and BEFORE complete_ai_task') and a constraint ('content in English'). This tells the agent when to use it, though it does not mention alternatives or exclusions. Still, the guidance is clear and actionable.

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