add_comment

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the context that this operation is append-only and preserves history, which is useful but not comprehensive—it does not explain idempotency behavior or potential side effects beyond the annotation hints.

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 redundant filler. Every word contributes to the core purpose and behavior.

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 description captures the primary use case but is thin given the tool has 5 parameters and an output schema. It does not address project_ref routing, idempotency key usage, or content semantics, though output schema reduces the need to explain return values.

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 60%, with content and idempotency_key lacking descriptions. The tool description does not explicitly describe any parameters, only vaguely referring to content as 'collaboration context.' It adds no meaningful clarification beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Append') and resource ('collaboration context to an issue') plus a distinguishing qualifier ('without rewriting history'). This clearly separates it from siblings like update_issue or create_issue.

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 phrase 'without rewriting history' implies this tool is for additive context rather than editing, but no explicit when-to-use or alternative tools are named. Usage guidance is only implied, not directly stated.

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