Add Issue Comment

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses two non-obvious behaviors: there is no `template_id` parameter, and notification/mentions require the `summonees` parameter rather than inline `@login` mentions. This gives the agent important context that could prevent incorrect invocations.

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 front-loaded and efficiently packed with high-value operational detail. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler or unnecessary repetition.

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?

The output schema exists and parameter schema coverage is complete, so the description only needs to provide the workflow and behavioral constraints that are not in the structured fields. It does so clearly and sufficiently for this 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?

The schema already provides 100% parameter coverage, but the description adds valuable cross-parameter guidance: `text` should be sourced from a template, and `summonees`/`maillistSummonees` should be populated to notify people. This goes beyond the individual schema descriptions.

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 'Add a comment to a Yandex Tracker issue,' using a specific verb, resource, and platform. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools such as `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?

It explicitly instructs the agent to check `comment_templates_get_all` first and to copy the template's `template` text and summonees into the appropriate parameters rather than inventing wording. It also warns not to use `@login` in text and to use `summonees` instead, but it does not explicitly contrast this tool with `issue_update_comment` or other mutation siblings.

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