Add Comments To A Direct Issue.

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, idempotent=false), the description adds valuable behavioral context: it returns HTTP 201 with the new id, calling again creates another record, and failure returns an error payload with common HTTP statuses (401 expired token, 403 missing permission, 404 unresolved id). It also notes default config behavior, enhancing 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 dense but not overly verbose. It front-loads the primary purpose and then provides prerequisites, behavior, error handling, required parameters, and API endpoint. Each sentence contributes useful information, though the structure could be slightly improved for readability.

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 description covers purpose, prerequisites, and error behavior, but it fails to explain how to provide the actual comment content. The input schema contains only path parameters, and the description does not clarify the request body. This is a critical omission—an agent cannot correctly invoke the tool without knowing what to send for the comment text.

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 schema already describes all three parameters (id, company_id, project_id) with 100% coverage, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds meaningful context about defaults (company_id/project_id from procore_set_config) and resolution of id via a list tool. However, it omits how the comment content itself is supplied, which is a notable gap.

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 ('Adds one or more comments') and the specific resource ('Direct Issue document'). It distinguishes this tool from other comment-adding tools by naming the resource type, and the verb is specific and unambiguous.

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 explicit prerequisite guidance: 'id must identify an existing parent record — resolve it with the matching list tool first.' It also explains default behavior for company_id/project_id from procore_set_config. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the tool's specific scope makes usage context clear.

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