Add comment

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

Annotations indicate a non-read-only but non-destructive operation, which aligns with the description's 'Posts a comment'. The description adds a useful behavioral tip about embedding screenshots via gitlab_upload_file, but does not disclose return behavior or side effects beyond the obvious write action.

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, front-loaded with the primary action and supported target types. The second sentence is an actionable usage tip. No redundancy or wasted words.

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 moderate complexity with 5 parameters and no output schema, but the description covers the main purpose and a useful cross-tool workflow. It does not explicitly mention required group_id for epics or project_id fallback, but those are present in the schema, so the description is adequately complete.

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 80%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds slight value by mentioning markdown from gitlab_upload_file for the body parameter, but it does not compensate for the undocumented group_id or project_id fallback details, which remain in the schema.

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 uses a specific verb 'Posts' and clearly identifies the resource as 'a comment' on various target types (issue, merge request, snippet, epic, commit). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like gitlab_update_note or gitlab_reply_to_discussion.

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 clear context on what targets it applies to, which helps the agent choose this tool for generic comment creation. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it compared to discussion-thread tools, so it lacks exclusions.

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