add_comment_to_issue

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It conveys only the precondition that the issue must already exist; it says nothing about posting identity (the comment is authored by the authenticated user unless stated), required permissions/scopes, rate limits, or whether the comment can be edited or removed afterward.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler: the action and scope come first, the triggering intents second. Nothing is repeated or padded.

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 simple four-parameter additive tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the essentials are present, but the absence of annotations leaves auth/permission and failure-mode context entirely undelivered.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only "issue existente", which hints at issueNumber's precondition but does not explain owner defaulting, repo syntax, or Markdown support beyond what the schema already documents.

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?

"Agrega un comentario a un issue existente de un repositorio de GitHub" gives a specific verb (agregar comentario) plus resource (issue existente en repo GitHub), and the word "existente" rules out creating containers. It is clearly distinct from siblings like create_issue or close_issue, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

"Úsalo cuando el usuario pida comentar, responder o dejar una nota en un issue" gives concrete trigger intents, which is stronger than most definitions. It stops short of exclusions (e.g., don't use for creating issues, don't use for PR comments) or naming alternative tools.

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