paperclip_add_comment

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

Annotations indicate non-destructive and open-world false. The description adds that a Run ID header is injected for audit trail, and lists HTTP error codes (400, 401, 404) with troubleshooting tips. It also notes the return object. This provides useful behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 well-structured with Args, Returns, Examples, Error Handling sections. However, it is somewhat verbose for a simple two-parameter tool. A more concise version could omit the full list of return fields since they are straightforward.

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?

Given no output schema, the description explains the return shape. It covers error codes and prerequisites (Run ID header injection). For a simple comment creation tool, it provides sufficient context for an agent to use it effectively.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are already documented. The description adds meaning with examples (e.g., 'body — Comment body in markdown (example: "@QA — ready for review on PAP-42. Changes: ...")') and clarifies that body must be non-empty (from error handling). This adds value.

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 'Post a markdown comment on an issue', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like paperclip_add_approval_comment by not mentioning approval, and later contrasts with paperclip_update_issue when used to add a comment while updating fields.

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 explicit 'Use when' and 'Don't use when' guidance, including an alternative tool (paperclip_update_issue) for combined comment+field updates. This helps the agent choose correctly.

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