taiga_add_comment

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, yet it says nothing about notification side effects, permissions, comment formatting, or what is returned. For a mutation tool with zero structured safety metadata, this is a meaningful gap.

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 efficient sentence with no waste, but the brevity reflects under-specification rather than discipline—nothing is front-loaded beyond the action itself.

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?

A mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage needs substantially more: permissions, format, and return expectations are all absent. What is present is barely enough to invoke the call correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and does not: 'object_id' is never explained (the id of the story/task/issue/epic), and the 'comment' field's format (plain text vs markdown) is unspecified. The enumeration of object types only restates the enum already in the schema.

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 ('Add a comment') and the exact resource targets ('userstory, task, issue, or epic'). There is no other comment-related sibling, so differentiation is mostly a non-issue, though it does not clarify relationship to update tools like taiga_update_user_story.

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 indication of when to use this versus editing the object's description, no prerequisites such as project membership or permissions, and no mention of whether comments support markdown. The agent gets only the bare action.

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