Add Tracker issue comment

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

Annotations cover the basics: readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true. The description adds that it returns the created comment, which is useful for a write operation with no output schema. However, it doesn't disclose side effects like notifications to summoned users, attachment handling, or rate limits, which are relevant for a comment creation tool with rich body parameters. With annotations present, the bar is lower, but more context could be provided.

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, economical sentence that front-loads the action and includes the return value. It's appropriately sized for a simple create tool, with no wasted words. It could be slightly more front-loaded, but it's efficient.

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 description is minimal but covers the essential purpose and return. However, for a mutation tool with nested object parameters and no output schema, it omits important behavioral context such as permission requirements, side effects (e.g., notifying summoned users), and confirmation details. With annotations covering the safety profile, it's adequate but has clear gaps.

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 every parameter and nested field (body.text, summonees, attachmentIds, maillistSummonees) has a clear description in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Add a comment to a Tracker issue'. It clearly conveys the action and target, distinguishing it from read operations like tracker_comments_list or tracker_comments_get. However, it doesn't differentiate against the sibling tracker_entities_comments_create, which likely serves a similar purpose for entities. Still, the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 implies usage—when you need to add a comment to an issue—but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as tracker_entities_comments_create for entity comments or tracker_comments_import for bulk. No conditions or exclusions are given, leaving the agent to infer from context.

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