addJiraComment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the issue must be 'existing', which implies a prerequisite, but does not disclose permissions, error behavior, return value, or that the comment is appended to the existing comment thread. This is minimal transparency for a mutation tool.

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 sentence of eight words, with no unnecessary verbs or modifiers. It front-loads the action and resource clearly, making it concise and well-structured.

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 tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete in a few respects: it does not describe the return value, error behavior, or required permissions. The schema covers parameter semantics, so the main gaps are around execution context.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-level details beyond what the schema already provides, but it doesn't need to compensate for any gaps.

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's action: 'Adds a new comment to an existing Jira issue.' It uses a specific verb ('Adds') and resource ('comment' to 'Jira issue'), which distinguishes it from other Jira tools like createJiraIssue or updateJiraIssue and from comment tools on other platforms.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply states the action without mentioning prerequisites (e.g., permissions) or directing users to other comment tools (e.g., createLinearComment) for other services. The 'existing issue' hint is the only contextual cue.

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