add_comment

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

With no annotations provided, the description itself carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only states the basic mutation and does not mention whether the comment replaces or appends, permission requirements, or whether the operation is irreversible. There is no information about side effects, rate limits, or response structure.

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 that directly states the action and object. It contains no filler, repetition, or unnecessary wording, and is appropriately sized for a simple two-parameter tool.

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 complete enough for a simple tool given the thorough parameter schema, but it relies entirely on the schema and name for context. There is no mention of return values, required permissions, or behavioral side effects, which would matter to an agent deciding how to verify the result of the call.

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%, with both parameters already documented including an example issue key and a note that comment text is plain text converted to ADF. The tool description itself adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: "Add a comment to a Jira issue." It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_issue, update_issue, or transition_issue, none of which add a comment specifically. The agent can immediately understand the tool's unique purpose.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or when not to use it. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and one-line description.

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