task_comment

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

Annotations already show non-readOnly and non-destructive, and the description adds value by explaining the comment log persists history and that status changes appear automatically. No contradictions with annotations. No additional behavioral traits like auth needs or rate limits are necessary for this simple write tool.

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 succinct: one sentence for purpose, one paragraph for usage guidance, and two lines for parameters. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

With output schema present to document return values, the description covers purpose, usage, parameters, and behavioral notes (auto-logging). Complete for a simple two-parameter tool with clear annotations.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description's 'Args' section provides clear, meaningful explanations for both parameters: 'ID of the task to comment on' and 'Comment text.' This fully compensates for the schema 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 clearly states the tool adds a free-form comment to a task's chronological log, specifying verb 'Add' and resource 'task's chronological log'. It distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., task_create, task_update) by explicitly differentiating the comment log from the task description.

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 provides explicit context: 'Use to record progress notes, intermediate findings, or context any agent looking at this task should see.' It contrasts the comment log with the canonical spec in the task description and notes that status changes auto-log. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use.

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