add_task_comment

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by disclosing that the operation is performed as the configured service account and only on allowed tasks. This adds auth and authorization context that the annotations do not provide. It does not contradict the annotations, which simply mark the operation as non-read-only, non-idempotent, and non-destructive.

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, well-structured sentence contains the action, target, scope, and identity context with no redundant words. It is appropriately front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 two-parameter tool with an output schema and clear annotations, the description covers the essential behavioral context: what is posted, where, and under whose identity. It could add more detail about error cases or restrictions, but the low complexity makes the current description largely sufficient.

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 adds little detail about the parameters. 'body' is implicitly the comment text and 'task_id' the target task, but there is no added meaning about formats, constraints, or how the allowed-task restriction actually applies to task_id.

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 a specific action ('Post a comment') and a specific resource ('task's Odoo chatter'), which is distinct from every sibling tool. It also adds useful scope qualifiers ('allowed task', 'configured service account'). No ambiguity about 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 description provides clear context: use this tool to add comments to tasks that the service account is permitted to access. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but no sibling tool performs comment posting, so the usage context is sufficiently clear.

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