Add Comment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that this is a POST (write) operation via the endpoint, but does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, side effects, or return values. This is a minimal addition beyond the fact that it adds a comment.

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 concise sentence that includes the relevant endpoint. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, contains no unnecessary words, and is easy to parse at a glance.

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 the low complexity (2 simple params, no output schema), the description covers the core purpose but lacks any contextual details such as expected response format, error conditions, or confirmation of success. This makes it minimally viable but not fully complete for an agent that might need to handle invocation outcomes.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with both 'issueKey' and 'comment' clearly documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it does not improve parameter understanding beyond what the schema already provides.

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 verb ('Adds') and resource ('a comment to an issue'), and includes the REST endpoint for clarity. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_issue_comments, which retrieves comments, and create_issue, which creates issues.

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 through the verb 'Adds' but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks any mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or when to prefer get_issue_comments for reading comments, so guidance is only implicit.

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