Create pull request comment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully identifies this as a write operation requiring confirmation, which is important for an agent. However, it does not disclose side effects, whether new threads are created, or any result/return behavior, leaving meaningful 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?

Two short sentences with no wasted words. The core action and scoping qualifier are front-loaded, and the required permission/confirmation is stated immediately after.

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 5-parameter mutation with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the most critical operational facts: it is a top-level PR comment, requires write tools, and requires confirm=true. The remaining context is already provided by the schema; it could be more complete by mentioning outcome or effects, but nothing essential is missing for invoking it.

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 the parameter schema already fully documents repositoryId, pullRequestId, content, project, and confirm. The description adds invocation-level guidance ('confirm=true') but no additional per-parameter meaning, 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 states a clear action ('Create') and a precise resource ('top-level pull request comment'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_pull_request_inline_comment. The word 'top-level' adds scope beyond the title and prevents confusion with inline-comment tools.

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 provides an important precondition: 'Requires write tools and confirm=true.' However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as create_pull_request_inline_comment or reply_to_pull_request_thread. The usage context is implied by 'top-level' but not fully articulated.

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