Create Kanban task comment

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, conveying it's a mutation that isn't destructive. The description adds the 'writing redacted receipts' behavior, which is genuinely useful side-effect disclosure. However, it doesn't disclose auth requirements, rate limits, or whether the comment appends asynchronously. With annotations already covering the safety profile, the added 'redacted receipts' note earns a mid-range score.

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 compact sentence that conveys the HTTP method, resource path, function, and parameters. It's not verbose or wasteful. Minor deduction for the jargon-heavy 'Typed POST wrapper' opener, which adds little for an agent reader, but overall it's efficiently 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?

The tool has an output schema (so return values needn't be described) and full schema coverage. The description adequately conveys the core operation and the redacted-receipts side effect. However, given the presence of many sibling kanban tools and a board parameter that affects task lookup semantics, a bit more context about when board is needed vs the default would strengthen completeness. Adequate but not exceptional.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (id, body, board) with descriptions. The description adds the 'comment text and optional board query param' mapping, plus the 'redacted receipts' context. Since the schema fully covers parameter meanings, this exceeds the baseline 3 by clarifying which parameter maps to the comment vs the board query param.

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 appends a comment to a Kanban task via POST, and mentions the JSON body and optional board parameter. While 'Typed POST wrapper' is a bit jargon-heavy, the core purpose (create a task comment) is unmistakable and distinct from sibling tools like hermes_kanban_task_update or hermes_kanban_link_create.

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 does not state when to use this tool vs alternatives, mention any prerequisites (e.g., needing task_to_read first), or explain when a comment should be created vs using other kanban tools. The openWorldHint=true is set but the description provides no guidance on context or invocation circumstances.

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