jira_add_comment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says nothing about auth/permission requirements, whether the comment triggers notifications, whether Jira markup is supported, or what the call returns, all of which are relevant for a write operation.

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, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the use cases. No filler, no redundancy; every clause earns its place.

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 with no output schema, the description covers purpose and usage scenarios adequately. It stops short of the behavioral specifics (permissions, response, formatting) that would make the definition fully self-sufficient given the absence of annotations.

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 only 50%: 'comment' is documented in the schema and effectively restated here, while 'issueKey' has no description in either place. The description does not compensate for that gap or add format/syntax guidance beyond what the schema already supplies.

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 specific verb+resource: 'Add a comment to a Jira issue.' That is unambiguous and easy to distinguish from siblings like jira_create_issue or jira_update_issue, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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 second sentence offers concrete use cases (investigation notes, RCA summaries, implementation updates), which is implied guidance on when the tool fits. However, it names no alternatives and sets no exclusions or prerequisites, so an agent still has to infer that this is the tool to use whenever a comment is needed.

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