add_comment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds value by mentioning support for mention syntax [~accountId] or [~email@example.com]. However, it does not disclose whether the tool returns the created comment, triggers notifications, or requires specific permissions. This leaves gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences with no redundant information. Every sentence serves a clear purpose: stating the action and adding the mention format. It is front-loaded and achieves its goal with minimal text.

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 simple schema (2 parameters) and absence of an output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the core action and a key formatting detail. However, it lacks information on error handling (e.g., invalid ticketId), return value, and any side effects (e.g., email notifications). Additional context would improve completeness.

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?

The input schema has 2 parameters with descriptions: ticketId ('The Jira ticket ID') and comment.body ('The comment text'). The description supplements this by explaining the mention format for the comment body, which is actionable and not in the schema. This adds meaningful semantic guidance beyond the schema, though ticketId lacks further detail (e.g., ID format).

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 the tool's purpose: 'Add a comment to a Jira ticket.' The verb 'Add' and resource 'comment to a Jira ticket' are specific and unambiguous. This differentiates it from sibling tools like 'delete_comment' or 'get_comments.'

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions the mention format, which is a usage hint, but does not state when not to use (e.g., for updating comments) or suggest alternative tools from the sibling list. The purpose is implied but not elaborated.

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