github_add_comment

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the description's job is to add context. It adds essentially none: no auth/permission requirements, no note that the comment is posted immediately and visible, and no error behavior. The only nuance is that the target may be an issue or a PR.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler and the key concept front-loaded. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than tight editing of rich content.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description should at least clarify auth expectations, whether the comment is posted on issues vs. PRs (partially covered), and what is returned. It omits all of this, leaving the agent with minimal context beyond the name.

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 0% across 4 required parameters, so the description must compensate. It only clarifies that 'number' refers to an issue or pull request number; owner, repo, and body are left entirely to the schema's title-level fields with no added meaning (e.g., repo format, body length limit).

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 and resource ('Comment on a GitHub issue or pull request'), so an agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling jira_add_comment or github_create_issue, but the GitHub/comment pairing is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as jira_add_comment or github_create_issue, nor any prerequisites (e.g., the target must already exist). Usage is only implied by the tool name itself.

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