comment_on_issue

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate that this is a write operation. It adds valuable behavioral context: the approval requirement and the fact that issues and PRs share numbering, which affects how the 'number' parameter is interpreted.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource. The second sentence delivers an essential safety directive without redundancy. Every word earns its place.

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 moderate-complexity tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description conveys the core purpose, a critical approval prerequisite, and a numbering nuance. It does not explain return values, but that is not required. The annotations cover the safety profile. Overall, it is sufficiently 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 coverage is 100%, so all parameters are already described. The description adds minimal extra parameter semantics, mainly the interpretation of 'number' as applying to both issues and PRs. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('Post a comment') and the target resource ('issue or pull request'), with the useful clarification that they share numbering. This distinguishes it from siblings like create_issue or get_pr, which have different purposes.

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?

Provides a clear, explicit usage constraint: ALWAYS show the user the comment text and get approval before calling. This is critical for a write operation. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the uniqueness of the tool makes that less necessary.

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