post_comment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It explicitly mentions the DRY_RUN / ALLOW_WRITES env var guard, which informs the agent that the write operation might be blocked or simulated. This is valuable transparency beyond the basic write implication. However, it does not mention other potential side effects, permissions, or return behavior, so it is not a perfect 5.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or redundancy. It is optimally concise for the information it conveys.

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 is simple, but the description lacks essential context. It does not describe what happens after posting (e.g., returns comment ID or confirmation), nor does it address error cases or edge conditions. The guard is mentioned, but parameter details are missing. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is minimally complete but leaves gaps that could cause an agent to misinvoke the tool.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description adds no semantic detail about the parameters. It simply echoes the schema field names (body, ticket_id) without explaining formats, constraints, or examples. The names are self-explanatory, but the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, leaving the agent to infer meaning.

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 tool's purpose: 'Post a comment on a Jira ticket.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_ticket, search_tickets, and update_ticket_field, which handle retrieval or field updates.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only mentions that it is 'Guarded by DRY_RUN / ALLOW_WRITES env vars,' which is a behavioral constraint, not a usage recommendation. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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