pr_comment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the operation is a write requiring confirmation and that it opens a thread, which is useful. However, it does not clarify side effects, permission requirements, whether this creates a top-level thread or replies to an existing one, or failure behavior.

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 very short and front-loaded with the core action. There is no padding, though 'Escrita: write + confirm' is cryptic and mixes languages, slightly reducing clarity.

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 mutating tool with five parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description omits important usage context: how confirm is used, what the comment body should contain, how repo/prId/project relate, and what the response indicates. It is not complete enough for confident invocation.

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 only 20%, so the description must compensate, but it only alludes to 'confirm' via 'write + confirm' and does not explain repo, prId, text, or the confirm behavior in detail. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds little beyond the bare 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 states a specific verb ('Comenta'), a specific resource ('num PR'), and a distinguishing behavior ('abre thread'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like wit_comment (work item comments) and pr_update.

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 a clear context cue ('num PR') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives such as wit_comment, nor does it provide exclusion criteria. 'Escrita: write + confirm' describes operation mode, not tool selection.

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