add_comment

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

Annotations indicate the tool is not read-only and not destructive, which aligns with the description of adding a comment. The description adds value by noting the idempotency_key behavior, but it does not disclose permissions, side effects, or error conditions, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 short (two sentences) and front-loaded with the primary action. It is efficient with no extraneous wording, though it could benefit from slightly more structure to separate required vs optional parameters.

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 the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the core action. However, it omits discussion of error scenarios, behavior on duplicate idempotency keys, or network failure handling, which limits completeness for a production 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It explains the comment fields card_id, author, body, and introduces idempotency_key with its purpose. However, it does not explain other comment properties like id, ext, or created_at, leaving some parameters underdocumented.

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 tool adds a comment to a card, specifying the required fields (card_id, author, body). While it distinguishes this action from other comment-related tools like list_comments or delete_comment, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like add_relation, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 briefly mentions idempotency_key for retry prevention but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or context. There is no comparison with sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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