add_comment

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

Annotations indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) but not destructive. The description adds minimal behavioral insight beyond stating it adds a comment and supports markdown. It does not disclose error handling, permissions, or side effects, so the transparency is average.

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 two sentences with no extraneous information. It is front-loaded and efficient, meeting conciseness goals.

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 the tool's simplicity (3 required string params, no output schema), the description is minimal but adequate. It does not explain what project or issueIdentifier represent, nor the return value, but for a basic add operation it is acceptable.

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 100% but parameter descriptions are generic ('a string that will be trimmed'). The description only mentions the 'body' parameter implicitly via markdown support, and provides no meaning for 'project' or 'issueIdentifier'. Thus it adds very little beyond the schema.

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 the tool adds a comment to a Huly issue, and mentions markdown support. The verb 'add' and resource 'comment to a Huly issue' are specific and distinct from sibling tools like 'add_thread_reply' which targets threads.

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. No when-not, prerequisites, or context are given, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name and siblings.

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