jira_add_comment

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

The description discloses the safe-by-default dry_run behavior, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not mention that it is a write operation, permissions, rate limits, or error handling. Without annotations, the description partially informs the agent.

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 short sentences, front-loading the primary purpose and key safe-behavior detail. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 no output schema and 0% parameter descriptions, the tool description fails to explain important aspects like return values, error handling, or the format/structure of the comment body. The agent lacks sufficient context to use the tool reliably without additional knowledge.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description only explains the dry_run parameter. It does not clarify the purpose of issue_key, body_md, reason, or confirm_token, leaving the agent to infer from names and types.

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 action: adding a comment to an existing Jira/ServiceNow ticket. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like jira_create_ticket (new ticket) and jira_draft_ticket (draft).

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 alludes to usage by mentioning dry_run=True for safe preview, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like jira_create_ticket or slack_post_update. The context is somewhat implied by the tool name and sibling list.

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