Add issue comments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses that all additions collapse into 'one undo step' and that the call batches multiple comments/issues, which is genuinely useful behavior context for a mutation tool.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the action and scoping, with the output contract folded in compactly. Nothing is wasted, though the trailing output shape makes it slightly dense.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly inlines the return shape and ordering ('in input order'), and annotations cover the safety hints. The only real gap is the undocumented undoName parameter, which is minor against an otherwise complete picture.

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 only 50%, and the description names no parameters at all. The comments array fields are documented in the schema, but undoName (maxLength 255, no description) is left entirely undefined in both places, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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+resource ('Adds comments to issues') and immediately distinguishes itself from the read-side sibling get_issue_comments and the create_issue sibling. It also conveys batch scope ('several comments / issues per call'), so an agent knows this is the write path for commenting.

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 intent is implied clearly by the name and the batch note, but it never says when to prefer this over get_issue_comments or create_issue, nor any prerequisite (e.g. issue must exist). No explicit alternatives or exclusions are named.

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