add_jira_comment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the core mutation ('Adds a comment') and the visibility capability, but omits important behavioral traits such as required permissions, side effects like notifications to issue watchers, response behavior, and failure modes for nonexistent issues. This is a significant gap for a write operation with zero annotation support.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and the second sentence adds useful optional behavior without any fluff. Every word earns its place.

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?

Adequate for a simple 3-parameter write tool with well-documented schema fields. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves response/error behavior and permission requirements unstated, which is a noticeable gap for a mutation tool.

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 schema already documents body, issueKey, and visibility fully. The description mentions visibility control at a high level but adds no syntax, default behavior, or format details beyond what the schema provides, leaving the score at the baseline.

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 a specific verb ('Adds'), a resource ('comment'), and a target ('existing Jira issue'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like add_confluence_comment by specifying the Jira platform and the issue object, so an agent can tell them apart without inspecting the schema.

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 clear context: use this when you need to add a comment to an existing Jira issue and optionally restrict its visibility. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, such as 'use add_confluence_comment for Confluence pages', which keeps it from a 5.

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