add_task_comment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action without covering side effects, permissions, return values, or idempotency. The inclusion of query-like parameters (after, filter, first, order) in a mutation is unexplained, which adds confusion rather than transparency.

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, starting with a clear action sentence, followed by a parameter list and an example. The example JSON is helpful but somewhat verbose; still, it is kept to a single line and is relevant.

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?

This is a simple mutation, but with no annotations or output schema, the description should at least hint at the return value or any preconditions. The presence of pagination/filter variables without explanation leaves the tool's full behavior unclear, so completeness is only average.

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?

Although the schema has 100% coverage, the descriptions are minimal (e.g., 'GraphQL: String'). The description adds value by specifying that input expects TaskCommentInput { taskId, comment } and providing a full example variable set, which clarifies how to construct the payload.

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 'Add a comment to a task,' which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this tool from sibling comment tools for other entities (e.g., add_case_comment, add_incident_comment, add_drp_alert_comment).

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 context is clear: use this tool when you need to add a comment to a task. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is specific enough to avoid confusion with sibling tools.

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