Добавить комментарий

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the text supports markdown, but says nothing about side effects (notifications to card members), permission requirements, whether the comment is returned, or error behavior for invalid card_id.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. It is arguably under-specified rather than over-long, but nothing is wasted.

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?

For a simple two-parameter creation tool with a fully described schema, the definition is minimally sufficient. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it leaves the agent without any sense of what is returned or what side effects to expect.

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 both parameters (card_id, text) are already documented in the schema. The description adds only one semantic detail beyond that — markdown support in the text field — which is the correct baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Добавляет комментарий к карточке'), which clearly separates it from siblings like kaiten_list_comments, kaiten_update_comment and kaiten_delete_comment. It does not explicitly name those alternatives, but the create-vs-list/update/delete distinction is inferable.

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 tool versus the sibling comment tools, no prerequisites (e.g. card must exist, permission needed), and no exclusions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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