kiwi_add_test_case_comment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose side effects itself. It only states the add action and does not explain whether the comment is appended, whether the test case must already exist, what permissions are needed, or what happens on success or failure.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is appropriately terse for a simple operation, though the brevity leaves out useful context.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is minimally callable, but it lacks surrounding context such as return behavior, prerequisites, or how the comment is attached. It is adequate but not fully complete for an agent-facing definition.

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, but it adds no real parameter meaning. It does not explain what case_id refers to beyond the obvious name, nor does it describe comment length, format, or constraints.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Add a comment to a test case.' The test-case qualifier differentiates it from sibling tools like kiwi_add_execution_comment, though it does not explicitly name or contrast with them.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus kiwi_add_execution_comment, kiwi_add_test_case_tag, or other add-* siblings. No prerequisites, exclusions, or decision criteria are provided.

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