Jira Add Comment

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It states the mutation ('Add') and the markdown format, but does not mention permissions, reversibility, side effects, or whether the comment is appended to existing comments.

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 sentence with no filler, and the core fact—adding a markdown comment—is front-loaded. Every word contributes meaning.

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?

The tool is simple and the parameter names are largely self-explanatory, and an output schema exists. Still, with no annotations and no usage guidance, the description leaves the agent to infer operational context such as the key format and the mutating nature of the action.

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%, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It clarifies that 'body' is markdown and 'key' refers to an issue, but it does not explicitly describe either parameter or give examples.

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 a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('comment to an issue'), and adds 'markdown' as a distinguishing detail. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like jira_update_issue and confluence_add_page_comment.

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 phrasing implies the tool is for adding comments to Jira issues, which is a distinct operation from siblings like jira_update_issue or jira_transition_issue. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives or any prerequisites.

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