comment_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does add real behavioral context that the schema cannot express: comments are human-visible via the web board and are distinct from the worklog. However it does not say whether this mutates task state, whether notifications are triggered, or whether it is idempotent.

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 tight sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by the disambiguation and the visibility note. No filler.

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 add-note tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, where the output surfaces (web board), and the closest alternative. Only the mutation/notification semantics are left implicit, which is a minor gap for a low-complexity tool.

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%, so both parameters (id with accepted formats, message as Markdown) are already fully documented. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource ("Add to the task's discussion") and immediately draws a boundary against the sibling log_work with "separate from the worklog." An agent can tell it apart from log_work without opening either schema.

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?

Gives concrete use cases (ask a human a question, leave a review note, answer one) and names the alternative it is not (the worklog). It stops short of explicit exclusions or prerequisites such as whether the task must be open, so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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