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. It discloses Markdown support and that the issue must already exist, but it does not mention permissions, side effects (e.g., notifications), or error behavior. This is modest disclosure but not comprehensive.

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: the first states the core purpose, the second provides two concrete examples. No wasted words, front-loaded, and each sentence earns its place by aiding the agent in understanding what the tool does and how to invoke it.

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 annotations or output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, Markdown support, and expected input. It does not explain return values or error handling, but the simplicity of the tool makes this omission acceptable, though not ideal.

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 100% for both parameters, and the schema descriptions already explain 'body' (including Markdown support) and 'issueId'. The description does not add significant extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states the action ('Add a comment'), the target ('an existing issue in Linear'), and the scope. It differentiates from siblings like create_issue and update_issue by focusing specifically on comments. The examples provide natural language patterns for invocation.

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?

Provides clear context: use this to comment on an existing issue. It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but the phrasing 'existing issue' implies it is not for creating or updating issues. The examples further clarify appropriate usage.

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