addOrEditJiraIssueComment

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds nothing beyond that: it doesn't say that editing replaces the existing comment body, what permissions are required, or that body is converted to ADF (the schema covers the ADF detail).

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no waste, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise. Being short here costs information rather than saving it.

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 mutating tool with no output schema, 5 parameters and only 60% schema coverage, the description should carry more: which mode is triggered by commentId, edit-replaces-body semantics, and visibility restrictions. None of that is present.

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 only 60%, and the description contributes zero parameter information. The critical selector between the two modes (commentId) and the undocumented issueIdOrKey and visibilityType params are left entirely to the schema, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 names a specific verb (add/edit) and resource (Jira issue comment), and it signals the dual mode of operation. It stops short of differentiating itself from siblings like listJiraIssueComments or addOrEditJiraIssueWorklog, so an agent gets the what but not the how-it-differs.

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?

'or edit an existing one' loosely implies a second mode exists, but there is no guidance on when to use this versus listJiraIssueComments, addOrEditJiraIssueWorklog, or how the edit path is triggered. No prerequisites, no alternatives, no when-not.

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