Add Issue Comment

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

Beyond the annotation readOnlyHint=false, the description discloses meaningful behavioral details: comments are created via this call, '@login' in text does not produce notifications, and notification requires the `summonees` parameter. This gives the agent important side-effect knowledge about who gets notified and how template content should be transferred. It does not state every consequence, but it covers the key non-obvious behavior.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action, followed by two targeted caveats. Every sentence contributes either primary purpose, a template-workflow correction, or a mention-behavior warning. There is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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 tool has six parameters, but all are fully described in the schema and the required ones are obvious. The description adds the critical contextual guidance about templates and mention semantics, and the presence of an output schema means return-value details are not the description's responsibility. An agent has enough information to call this tool correctly and avoid the most likely errors.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining that there is no `template_id` parameter and that template text should be copied into `text` while template summonees go into the summon parameters. It also clarifies the real-world meaning of `summonees` for mentions, reinforcing and extending the schema's explanation.

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 an unambiguous action: 'Add a comment to a Yandex Tracker issue.' This names the exact verb and resource and clearly separates it from sibling operations like issue_update_comment, issue_get_comments, and issue_delete_comment. It also clarifies what the tool is not for by stating there is no `template_id` parameter, preventing confusion with template-related helpers.

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 gives concrete when-to-use guidance: add comments to issues, and if using a saved template, first call `comment_templates_get_all` with `queue` set, then copy values into `text` and the summon parameters. It also explicitly warns against the common mistake of putting '@login' in the text, directing users to the `summonees` parameter instead, which is a clear exclusion and alternative.

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