kiwi_add_execution_comment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the action. It does not explain whether the comment is appended to existing comments, what response is returned, any permission requirements, or other side effects beyond the basic mutation.

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 sentence with no wasted words. The verb and resource are front-loaded, and there is no redundant restatement of the tool name or obvious filler.

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 two-parameter, no-output-schema mutation tool, the description is nearly sufficient, but it lacks usage context and behavioral detail. It is adequate for the operation itself, but an agent would still be guessing about return values and how to choose this tool over similar siblings.

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%, but the parameter names are self-explanatory and 'test execution' clarifies that execution_id identifies the execution to comment on. The description adds minimal semantic context beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the simplicity of the two parameters.

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 ('Add') and a clear resource ('a comment to a test execution'), directly distinguishing it from the sibling kiwi_add_test_case_comment which targets test cases. The resource is clearly identified, so an agent can tell the tools apart without deep inspection.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like kiwi_add_test_case_comment or kiwi_get_execution_comments. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as the execution needing to exist, or when another tool would be more appropriate.

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