weeek_add_task_comment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that comments post as the calling user, that the body is Markdown, and critically that there is no public comments API, so it drives the web API through a browser session requiring WEEEK_EMAIL/WEEEK_PASSWORD or a cached login. It leaves out failure modes (expired session, permission errors) and any return value, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences, purpose front-loaded, then format, then the auth caveat. Each sentence earns its place; no filler.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description must stand alone, and it covers purpose, body format, authorship, and the unusual auth requirement. It omits what the call returns (e.g., the new comment id) and error behavior, which keeps it from being fully complete.

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 coverage is 50%: text is documented ('Comment body as Markdown') but task_id has no schema description. The description enriches the text parameter by enumerating supported Markdown constructs, partially compensating, but says nothing about task_id's meaning or where to obtain it.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Comment on a task'), making the create-a-comment action clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like weeek_update_task_comment or weeek_delete_task_comment, but 'posts as you' implies creation rather than modification.

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 when-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives, even though the sibling list contains update_task_comment, delete_task_comment, and list_task_comments. The agent must infer that this tool always creates a new comment rather than modifying one.

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