Add Issue Comment

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint: false, confirming a write operation. The description adds a behavioral nuance about notification mechanism (summonees vs @). However, it does not disclose other traits like permission requirements, whether comment is added immediately, or potential side effects. With output schema present, the agent gets some structure, but transparency beyond annotations is moderate.

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 concise: one sentence stating the purpose plus an important behavioral note. It is front-loaded with the action and every sentence adds value. No wasted words.

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 6 parameters (2 required), 100% schema coverage, and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential context: what the tool does and a critical usage nuance. It does not explain error scenarios or prerequisites, but for a straightforward add operation this is sufficient.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter information beyond what the schema already provides; it only repeats the summonees advice already in the parameter description. No additional semantic value.

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?

Title 'Add Issue Comment' and description 'Add a comment to a Yandex Tracker issue' clearly specify the verb 'Add' and resource 'comment'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like issue_get_comments, issue_update_comment, and issue_delete_comment.

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 explicitly states 'If you need to mention/call people to the discussion (so they get notifications), do NOT rely on '@login' in the text — use the `summonees` parameter instead.' This provides clear guidance on when to use an alternative approach within the same tool. It does not mention when not to use the tool or list alternatives, but the advice is actionable.

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