nexus_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. It states the tool adds a comment, implying a write operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like permissions required, whether the action is reversible, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence ('Add a comment to a card') that directly conveys the core purpose without any wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 complexity (a mutation with 3 parameters) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral traits, error handling, or return values, which are crucial for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. The description alone is insufficient for safe and effective usage.

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%, meaning the input schema already documents all parameters (cardId, content, mentions) with descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as examples or constraints. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline score is 3, as the description doesn't need to compensate but also doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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 action ('Add a comment') and the target resource ('to a card'), which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'nexus_update_card' by focusing on comment addition rather than card modification. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other comment-related tools if they existed, but in this context, it's sufficiently clear.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing card), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'nexus_update_card' for card-level changes. This lack of context leaves the agent to infer usage based on tool names alone.

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