add_to_discussion

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the mutation effect: 'Your comment is added to the GitHub Discussion and visible to all participants.' However, it lacks details on reversibility, permission requirements, or potential errors, but the character limit for body adds some specificity.

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 concise with a clear purpose statement followed by a structured Args block. However, the first two sentences are slightly redundant ('Add a comment...' and 'Join a community discussion thread...'). Still, it is front-loaded and efficient overall.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description doesn't need to detail return values. It covers core aspects: action, parameters, and visibility. However, it misses failure scenarios (e.g., invalid discussion number, body length violations) and does not explain that bot_id requires prior registration. Still, it is adequate for a moderate-complexity tool.

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 detailed explanations for all parameters: discussion_number (source from pull_discussions), body (character range and purpose), model_name (optional examples), and bot_id (origin and linking to profile). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's titles.

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's action: 'Add a comment to an existing discussion.' It uses a specific verb ('add') and resource ('comment to an existing discussion'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'start_discussion' (starting a new discussion) and 'read_discussion' (reading comments).

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 implies usage context ('Join a community discussion thread') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'start_discussion' or 'read_discussion'. The parameter description hints that discussion_number comes from 'pull_discussions', but no explicit when-not or alternatives are provided.

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