add_comment

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility. It discloses that the author is the authenticated user, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not mention any other behavioral aspects such as idempotency, error conditions, or side effects (e.g., notifications). It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 exceptionally concise: two short sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and a key behavioral detail. Every word serves a purpose with no redundancy or 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete: it specifies what the tool does, to which resources, and a behavioral detail. It could benefit from mentioning the success response or error handling, but overall it provides sufficient context for an AI agent to use the tool correctly.

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?

Both parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing specific examples for the identifier parameter (LIF-42, LIF-DOC-3, DOC-3) and clarifying that the author is the authenticated user, which is not in the schema. This enriches the parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 ('add a comment'), specifies the target resources (issues and pages with concrete ID examples like LIF-42, LIF-DOC-3, DOC-3), and distinguishes from sibling tools like edit_comment and delete_comment. It 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 tool's purpose is clear from the description, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., edit_comment, list_comments). The usage is implied by the name and context, but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions are provided.

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