add_jira_comment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It confirms this is a write operation but omits whether watchers are notified, whether the comment can be edited or deleted afterwards, permission requirements, or what happens if the issue key is invalid.

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 short sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and no wasted words. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than tight editing of richer content.

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 operation with fully documented schema fields and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It still leaves the mutation's side effects and success/failure behavior unexplained, which matters given the absence of annotations.

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 100%, with both issue_key and comment documented including an example format ('PROJ-123'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema already conveys.

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 (add) and resource (comment on a Jira ticket), so the agent knows exactly what it does. However, it offers no differentiation from siblings like get_jira_ticket or update_jira_ticket, which also touch the same ticket resource.

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?

Provides no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites such as needed permissions or issue existence, and no mention of alternatives. The agent must infer everything about context from the name alone.

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