createIssueComment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the event kind (NIP-22, kind 1111), that replyTo creates a threaded reply, and that bounty events are unaffected. It does not mention signing/broadcasting to relays or output behavior, but the core publish semantics are clear.

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 with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, threading behavior is stated, and the important exclusion of bounty events is included compactly.

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 publishing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior, target, threading, and a likely point of confusion (bounty events). Minor gaps remain around relay usage, default behavior when relays are omitted, and what the tool returns, but these are not fatal for correct 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 coverage is 71% and the schema already documents most parameters including issueId, repoId, ownerPubkey, privkey, and replyTo. The description adds useful context for replyTo and the non-bounty exclusion, but it does not compensate for the undocumented relays and content parameters, which are left to inference.

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 ('Publish'), a specific resource ('NIP-22 comment (kind 1111) on an issue'), and clarifies it does not create or modify bounty events. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like createPRComment, listIssueComments, and the bounty-focused tools.

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 makes the target context clear ('on an issue') and explicitly excludes bounty event creation/modification. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as createPRComment for pull request comments, but the issue scoping and event kind provide enough routing context for most calls.

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