cm

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-readOnly, non-destructive write, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely non-schema behavior: the comment supports markdown, @mentions follow OpenProject's own rules, and the result is visible to the whole team — the last point is important for an agent judging disclosure risk.

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, zero filler, with the core action stated first and the formatting/visibility caveats after it. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 write tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials an agent needs to call it safely: format and audience. The remaining gap is the preview-then-confirm flow, which is present in the schema's 'cf' description, so overall completeness is high.

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 confirmation code, target id forms, and notification flag are already fully documented. The description adds only the markdown/@mention framing, which is marginal extra meaning for the parameters themselves, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a clear verb+resource pair ('Comenta em um work package'), which is essential since the tool name 'cm' is opaque. It does not differentiate against the cryptic siblings (up, new, rel), so an agent must infer that 'cm' posts a comment rather than updating a field.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb: leaving a comment on a work package. There is no statement of when to prefer this over siblings like 'up' or 'new', and no mention of the approval/preview workflow that governs actually sending the comment (that constraint lives only in the schema).

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