jira_add_comment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true; the description goes beyond them by naming the concrete consequence of non-idempotency (duplicate comments on blind retry) and by stating the visibility model — no restricted visibility, anyone with issue access can read it. That is real added context, though it doesn't cover any permission requirements for commenting.

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?

Three short sentences with the operation front-loaded in the 'WRITE:' prefix, and each sentence contributes a distinct piece of information (action, visibility, retry hazard). No filler, though the markup and visibility points could be merged without loss.

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 two-parameter write tool whose annotations already carry the safety profile, the description covers the mutation semantics, visibility scope, and the duplicate-comment failure mode. Return-value behavior isn't described, but no output schema exists and the operation is simple enough that this is a minor 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it only partly does: it tells the agent that 'body' accepts text/wiki markup, which is genuinely useful. It adds nothing about 'issueKey' beyond what the schema's pattern already encodes, and doesn't state whether the markup is rendered or stored raw.

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 definition opens with a specific verb+resource pair ('add a comment to a Jira issue') and a WRITE: prefix that immediately contrasts with the read-side sibling jira_get_comments. It does not explicitly name or defer to any sibling, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is largely implied by the verb — you call this when you want to attach a comment — and there is one operational directive ('never retry blindly after a timeout'). There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or comparison to alternatives such as jira_update_issue for editing existing comments.

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