add_issue_comment

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It doesn't disclose that this is a mutation, any auth requirements, or what the response contains. The terse description lacks behavioral transparency.

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 short, direct sentences. No fluff. Each sentence 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?

For a simple mutation, the description is minimal but does not address the existence of add_pr_comment, leaving confusion about when to use which. The output schema exists, so return details are not needed, but usage guidance is missing.

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 covers all three parameters with descriptions. The description adds that the 'number' can refer to either an issue or PR number, giving context beyond the schema's generic 'Issue number.' This extra semantic info justifies a score above baseline.

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 tool adds a comment to an issue with a specific verb and resource. It also mentions PR support, which adds context. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling add_pr_comment, causing slight ambiguity.

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?

No guidance on when to use this vs add_pr_comment or other alternatives. The note about PRs might imply it's also for PR comments, but there is a dedicated sibling, so the description leaves the decision unclear.

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