ci.comment_pr

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by declaring '[approval required][workspace write][network][risk:dangerous]'. It also discloses the underlying gh mechanism and the current-PR fallback behavior. It stops short of describing failure modes or side effects, but the explicit risk and permission tags are valuable.

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 compact and front-loads the most important risk and permission context before the action. Every clause earns its place, and the current-PR fallback is stated without unnecessary wording.

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 dangerous network/write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain how body vs bodyPath should be supplied, what happens on failure, or what the agent should check before calling; the risk tags alone do not make the tool safe to invoke.

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 compensate, but it only clarifies prNumber via 'Uses current PR when prNumber is omitted.' The body and bodyPath parameters are left entirely unexplained, including whether they are mutually exclusive or whether one is required.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Create a GitHub PR comment through gh.' The tool name ci.comment_pr matches the described action, and the resource is distinct from siblings like code.open_pr and ci.create_github_annotations, so an agent can tell what this tool does.

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 phrase 'Uses current PR when prNumber is omitted' gives practical operational guidance for the common case. However, there is no explicit comparison to alternatives or conditions for when not to use this tool; the usage context is only implied by the action itself.

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