gorelo_create_project_comment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation/safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not mention that the body must be HTML, that attachments must be uploaded first, or what happens if ConversationId is omitted. With the bar lowered by annotations, this still adds no value.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It is efficient, but the brevity is closer to under-specification than to disciplined conciseness for a tool with a nested request body.

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?

This is a write tool with a nested body object containing optional author/date/conversation/attachment fields and no output schema. The description says nothing about the two-step attachment flow, HTML formatting requirement, or the effects of posting, leaving the description thinner than the tool's complexity warrants.

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%, including detailed nested field docs (HTML body, UTC CreatedOn, attachment upload flow, conversation type enum-ish values). The description contributes nothing beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Posts a comment on a project'), which is enough to separate it from the sibling comment tools that target tasks and tickets. It never names those siblings explicitly, so differentiation is inferred from the word 'project' rather than stated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus gorelo_create_project_task_comment, gorelo_create_ticket_comment, or gorelo_list_project_comments. No prerequisites, permissions, or context for posting are given; the agent must infer everything from the name.

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