write_comment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, and the description does not contradict these. It adds useful behavioral detail about format handling (markdown vs plain text vs HTML) and replyTo semantics, which goes beyond the annotations. However, it does not elaborate on the destructive implications or open-world side effects suggested by openWorldHint=true, so the added context is moderate.

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 three short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. Every sentence earns its place: purpose, format behavior, and replyTo meaning. There is no filler or redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 write tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core action and clarifies the two most ambiguous parameters (format and replyTo). It omits explicit explanation of 'id' (card identifier) and 'private', but these are relatively self-evident from the context. Given the annotations cover the read-only/destructive profile, the description is adequately complete for a simple comment operation, though not exhaustive.

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 only 20% (only 'format' has a description), so the description must compensate. It clarifies 'format' (markdown vs HTML vs text) and 'replyTo' (answers another comment), which is helpful. However, it does not explain 'id' (presumably the card id) or 'private', leaving the agent to infer from the name and context. The description partially fills the gap but not completely.

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 opens with 'Add a comment to a card', a clear verb+resource pair that unambiguously states the tool's function. It also distinguishes itself from the many sibling write_* tools by focusing specifically on comment operations, and the added format/replyTo details reinforce 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 implies when to use the tool (to add a comment) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives or state when not to use it. It provides no guidance on choosing this over, say, write_create_card or write_update_card, leaving the agent to infer from the purpose alone. This is clear context but no exclusions.

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