jira_add_comment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the operation without mentioning side effects, permission requirements, idempotency, or what the response contains. It adds nothing beyond the obvious 'add comment' behavior.

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 short declarative sentence with no filler and the core operation is front-loaded. It is efficiently sized, though it does not enrich the description with any contextual guidance.

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 a simple two-parameter mutation with fully documented schema fields, so an agent can construct a valid call. However, with no annotations, no output schema, and no guidance about behavior or alternatives, the description is only minimally complete for safe and correct invocation.

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%: both issueKey and body have clear descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond mapping 'comment' to body and 'Jira task' to issueKey, so it does not merit a higher score.

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 action verb 'Добавить' (add) and a clear resource 'комментарий к задаче Jira' (comment to a Jira issue). This distinguishes it from read-only siblings like jira_get_comments and other issue mutations like jira_create_issue or jira_update_issue.

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 use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it name any sibling tool. However, the action of adding a comment is clearly implied by the name and description, so usage is inferable rather than completely absent.

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