add_comment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It explicitly states the mutating action (add a comment) and adds context about preserving the audit trail, which provides useful behavioral insight beyond the bare action. It doesn't cover permissions or reversibility, but for a simple tool this is sufficient.

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 three short sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the action, providing usage context, and noting a behavioral trait. It is efficiently front-loaded with the purpose in the first sentence and contains no fluff.

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?

The tool is simple (2 parameters, no nested structures, no output schema). The description covers purpose, usage scenarios, and a behavioral note, which is adequate. It doesn't explain return values, but for add_comment this is not necessary given the tool's simplicity.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The schema already fully describes both parameters (comment and issue_key) with examples. The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 action with a specific verb and resource: 'Add a comment to a Jira issue.' It also provides specific use cases (investigation steps, evidence, findings, remediation actions) and naturally distinguishes itself from siblings like create_issue, update_issue, and transition_issue.

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 gives clear context on when to use the tool ('Use to record investigation steps, evidence, findings, or remediation actions directly on the ticket.'). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, which would merit a 5.

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