add_comment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'タスクにコメントを追加' indicates a write operation (adding a comment), but it doesn't specify permissions required, whether comments are editable/deletable, rate limits, or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, efficient sentence in Japanese that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with zero waste or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a mutation operation with 3 required parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like permissions, side effects, or response expectations, leaving the agent with insufficient context for safe and effective use.

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%, with all three parameters (projectId, issueId, body) well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't clarify parameter relationships or usage examples). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'タスクにコメントを追加' (Add comment to task) clearly states the action (add) and target resource (comment to task). It distinguishes from siblings like create_task, delete_task, list_tasks, and update_task by focusing specifically on commenting rather than task lifecycle operations. However, it doesn't specify the exact scope (e.g., GitLab issue comments) beyond what the parameters imply.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing task), exclusions, or relationships with sibling tools like update_task (which might also modify task content). Usage is implied by the name and parameters but not explicitly stated.

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