add_work_package_comment

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

The description adds context beyond annotations: it states the action is not read-only (append), not idempotent (creates permanent activity), and can cause notifications. No contradiction with annotations (all false).

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 sentences with the key action and return upfront. No redundant text; every clause adds value.

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 tool without output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and behavioral traits. Parameter details are the main gap, but overall complete enough for an agent.

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 0%, so the description should explain parameters. It only mentions 'comment is Markdown' implicitly but fails to describe the 'id' parameter, constraints, or examples. Minimal added value beyond property names.

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 clearly states the action ('Append a Markdown comment'), the target ('one work package'), and the return value ('activity plus work-package URL'). It distinguishes from siblings like update_work_package by specifying 'not field changes'.

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?

Explicit use cases ('progress notes or follow-ups') and exclusions ('not field changes') are provided. It also mentions side effects (permanent activity, notifications) but does not name alternative tools directly.

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