Post a comment to a task in Worksection, with options to mark it as internal or attribute it to a specific account email.
Add a comment to a task.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | Comment body. | |
| hidden | No | Post as an internal comment. | |
| task_id | Yes | Task id. | |
| project_id | Yes | Project the task belongs to. | |
| author_email | No | Account email to post the comment as. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description alone must disclose behavior. It reveals only that a comment is added, but does not mention write permissions, whether hidden/internal comments behave differently, or side effects; these are material 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 entire description is one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the purpose.
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 mutation with fully documented parameters, the tool is callable from this description alone. However, with no annotations or output schema, an agent is left without guidance on return behavior, authentication, or the hidden flag's effect, so this is a minimal but not comprehensive definition.
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%, and the schema documents all five parameters, including hidden and author_email defaults. The description adds no parameter meaning itself, so baseline 3 applies.
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 uses the specific verb 'Add' with the direct object 'comment' and target 'task', clearly distinguishing post_comment from siblings like get_comments and update_comment. Even without a title, the purpose is unmistakable.
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 does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives or mention prerequisites. Its verb makes the intended use obvious relative to get_comments and update_comment, so guidance is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.