Add a Linear comment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Add a comment' without mentioning permissions, idempotency, reversibility, or what the response contains—significant for a mutation tool.

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 a single concise sentence, well-front-loaded with the core action. However, it is under-specified; the brevity leaves critical details unstated, so it's concise but not optimally structured for utility.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and only partial parameter documentation, the description is inadequate for an agent to call the tool correctly. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or any prerequisites, making it incomplete for a mutation operation.

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 33% (parentId has a description, issueId and body do not). The description adds no parameter information at all, failing to compensate for the low coverage. It doesn't clarify the meaning of issueId, body, or the optional parentId beyond what the schema already states.

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 clearly states the action ('Add a comment to an issue') and the optional threaded-reply feature, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like linear_update_comment or linear_delete_comment. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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 tool versus alternatives such as linear_update_comment or linear_list_comments. The context is implied but no explicit when/when-not conditions are provided.

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