add_pr_comment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the useful nuance that comments are general conversation rather than code review, and the verb 'comment' implies a write operation. However, it omits any mention of permissions, side effects, or return behavior, which prevents a higher score.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every part contributes to the purpose, and the parenthetical adds a valuable distinction without bloat.

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 tool with fully documented parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and a key behavioral nuance. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly, though it lacks deeper usage guidance that would push it to a 5.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides for repo, number, and body, so it does not exceed the 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 action ('Comment on a pull request') with a specific resource, and adds a distinguishing note ('general conversation, not a code review') that separates it from review comment tools. This makes the purpose immediately identifiable and differentiates it from siblings like add_issue_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 description provides clear context that this is for PR comments and explicitly excludes code reviews, which serves as a when-not guidance. However, it does not name alternative tools (e.g., add_issue_comment) or state explicit conditions for when to use this tool, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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