Add Comment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without revealing side effects, permission requirements, or what happens on failure. The mutation implied by 'add' is obvious, but nothing else is disclosed.

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 sentence with no filler, making it appropriately concise. However, it may be too terse to be fully useful, but for a simple tool, the brevity is acceptable. The key information (action and target) is front-loaded.

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?

While the tool is simple and an output schema exists (which may cover return values), the description is incomplete for a 3-parameter tool. It doesn't explain what each parameter does or any constraints, and it lacks usage context such as 'requires an existing card.' The minimalism leaves too much to inference.

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%, and the description adds no meaning to the parameters beyond their names. board_name, card_name, and comment are self-explanatory, but the description doesn't clarify formats, uniqueness constraints, or how they relate. For a tool with 0% coverage, the description must compensate but fails to.

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 states a clear verb ('Add') and resource ('a comment to a card'), which is specific and actionable. It doesn't explicitly name sibling tools, but the action is unambiguous and distinct from operations like create_card or update_card.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites such as the card needing to exist. There is no mention of when not to use it or how it differs from update_card or create_card.

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