Add comment

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

Adds substantial context beyond annotations: placement in the Unsorted panel, board-wide visibility under the caller's name, notifications to thread participants, plain-text semantics where @name tags nobody, and creator-only editing. It does not address non-idempotency (duplicate comments on repeated calls) or explain why destructiveHint=true for an additive action.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the two modes, then placement, then audience/notification behavior, then the plain-text and ownership caveats. No sentence is filler.

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?

For a 3-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers placement, visibility, notifications, and permission scope. It never says what is returned (e.g., the new comment ID needed for later edit/delete), which is the one practical gap.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters; baseline is 3. The description does add real meaning for reply_to_id by spelling out the default behavior and resulting placement, but text and board_id are only restated.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: posting a comment card on a board or a reply in a comment thread, attributed to the caller. The two modes (new card vs. thread reply) make it clearly distinguishable from siblings like add_note, edit_comment, and delete_comment.

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?

Explicitly gives the branch condition: omit reply_to_id to create a new comment card, include it to join an existing thread. It hints at follow-up tools ('Only you can edit or delete it afterwards') without naming edit_comment/delete_comment, so no formal alternative routing.

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