Add comment

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, open-world write. The description adds value by noting the Markdown body format and that the comment is attributed to the connected user, but it does not warn about duplicate comments or what happens if the issue is closed or the user lacks permission.

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?

A single tight sentence with no waste, and the key action and resource are front-loaded. It is perhaps slightly under-specified rather than verbose.

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?

For a 3-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers the core action but omits what the call returns (e.g., comment ID) and any failure conditions. Adequate but with clear gaps around return value and error behavior.

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%, so issueKey, body, and site are already fully documented in the schema. The description only reinforces that body is Markdown, adding no new semantic detail. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Adds a comment ... to an issue') plus the body format (Markdown) and acting identity (connected user). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling jira_get_comments, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with it.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., must be connected / have comment permission), and does not point to any alternative such as viewing existing comments first. The agent must infer context from the name alone.

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