Add OpenProject Work Package Comment

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the write-enable prerequisite, which implies mutation, but it does not disclose side effects, whether notify controls email notifications, or how internal comments differ from public ones. This is insufficient for a mutation tool with no annotation support.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently states the action and the key prerequisite.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the tool returns and how optional parameters behave. It only covers the core action and an environment variable, leaving behaviors like notification and internal visibility undocumented. Incomplete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate. It provides no explanation of the four parameters; only 'comment' is inferable from the description. 'notify' and 'internal' are left unexplained, and 'id' is only obvious from context. This is a clear 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 states 'Add a comment to a work package.' This is a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like create_work_package or get_work_package. The title reinforces the purpose without ambiguity.

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 includes a prerequisite ('Requires OPENPROJECT_ENABLE_WRITE=true'), which is useful context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention that comments are appended to an existing work package. The usage scenario is implied from the name but not clearly articulated.

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