add_comment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Add' indicates a mutating operation, but the description does not disclose permissions, idempotency, side effects, error behavior, or what happens when the issue does not exist. 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 a single clear sentence with no filler or redundant content. It is concise and front-loaded, though it leans toward underspecification rather than efficient completeness.

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 tool is simple with only two required parameters and full schema coverage, so the core invocation is clear. However, the lack of annotations, output schema, and behavioral details leaves gaps around expected outcomes and failure modes that a fuller description could address.

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%, with both parameters documented in the schema: issueNumber and body. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail, but since the schema covers both parameters, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: 'Add a comment to an existing issue.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like create_issue, list_issues, and search_issues, since adding a comment is a distinct action on an existing issue rather than creating, listing, or searching issues.

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 'existing issue' implies the tool is for commenting on already-created issues, which provides some usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or preconditions beyond requiring an existing issue number.

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