Add Comment

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond the action itself. Despite annotations declaring destructiveHint=false, there is no information about authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects such as the comment becoming visible to viewers. For a mutation tool, this leaves significant gaps in behavioral disclosure.

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 conveys the core purpose in the most concise form possible, earning a top score for structure and conciseness.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of a comprehensive input schema (100% coverage) and an output schema (indicated), the one-line description provides adequate context. It identifies the action and resource, and the schema supplies parameter details. However, it stops short of mentioning sibling tool distinctions, so it is not fully complete.

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%, with detailed documentation for each parameter, especially 'public' and 'visibility'. The description itself does not add parameter semantics, but the schema already carries the full burden, so a baseline score 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 'Add a comment to a Jira issue' clearly states the action (add) and the resource (comment on a Jira issue), using a specific verb+resource structure. It distinguishes from sibling tools like jira_edit_comment by the verb, though it does not explicitly compare with alternatives.

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 such as jira_edit_comment for modifying comments. The usage context is only implied by the tool name and description, with no explicit exclusions or alternative references.

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