taiga_userstory_comment_create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral transparency. It discloses that the comment is posted via the history endpoint, but it omits key details such as authentication requirements, whether the action is destructive, or any side effects like notification triggering. The description does not indicate what happens to the userstory's history beyond the posting.

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 two concise sentences. The first sentence clearly states the primary action, and the second provides a useful implementation note. No wasted words or redundant repetition of the tool name.

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 simple tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the core purpose. However, it does not describe the return value or successful outcome (e.g., whether the created comment is returned, or if only success/failure is indicated). Given the low complexity, it is minimally viable but 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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters (id and comment). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as format constraints, examples, or relationships between parameters. Baseline of 3 is appropriate when schema fully documents parameters.

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 uses a specific verb+resource construction: 'Add a comment to a userstory.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling comment tools for other entities (e.g., task, issue, wiki) and from the userstory comment deletion tool. The additional detail about the history endpoint reinforces the action.

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 clearly implies the tool is used for adding comments specifically to user stories, setting the context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives (e.g., delete comment). This is clear context without exclusions, but not fully explicit usage guidance.

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