addJiraComment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does and mentions the 'existing' issue precondition, but it does not disclose permissions required, side effects (e.g., whether a notification is sent), or any other behavioral traits beyond the obvious write operation.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It immediately conveys the action and target, making it highly scannable and efficient.

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 write tool, the description is minimally adequate, but it lacks usage guidance and behavioral context (e.g., return behavior or prerequisite permissions). Since there is no output schema, the description could have provided more context, but the simplicity of the operation prevents a lower score.

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% and both parameters include meaningful descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-specific information, but the schema already documents the parameters effectively, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Adds') and resource ('new comment to an existing Jira issue'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like createJiraIssue or updateJiraIssue. It precisely states the tool's scope without ambiguity.

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 implies its usage—when you need to comment on a Jira issue—but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives or any exclusions. There are no sibling Jira comment tools, but the absence of explicit context keeps this at baseline.

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