jira_comment

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: bodies are ADF documents, the 'full' parameter bypasses summaries on reads, and mutation actions reject 'full' with minimal responses. It does not mention rate limits or authentication but covers essential operational traits.

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 bullet points for actions and clear parameter lists. It is slightly verbose but efficient, combining narrative and structured lists. Minor redundancy exists (e.g., repeating 'Bodies are ADF documents' in schema and description) but does not detract significantly.

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 10 parameters, no output schema, and nested objects, the description covers all actions, parameter requirements, and special behavior (full parameter). It lacks details on ADF document structure and the visibility format, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an AI agent to invoke correctly.

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 very low (10%), but the description adds extensive meaning by detailing each action's required and optional parameters, explaining the 'full' boolean, and noting that 'visibility' is an object. This far exceeds the bare schema, providing practically all needed semantics.

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 it handles CRUD operations on Jira issue comments with the specific verb 'List, add, update, and delete' and identifies the resource as 'comments on a Jira issue'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like jira_issue and jira_attachment by focusing solely on comments.

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 guidance for each action, including required parameters (e.g., 'list requires issueIdOrKey; optional startAt...'). It also explains when to use the 'full' parameter and notes that mutation actions reject it. However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with siblings.

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