taiga_wiki_comment_create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The only behavioral disclosure is 'Comment is posted via the history endpoint,' which hints at the persistence mechanism but does not state permissions, side effects, or what happens on success/failure. This is insufficient for a mutating operation without annotation support.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no wasted words. It states the primary purpose first and adds a useful implementation detail in the second sentence, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

This is a low-complexity tool with two fully documented parameters and no output schema. However, as a mutating tool with no annotations, the description should compensate for missing safety/behavioral information. The history endpoint note provides some context, but the description omits side effects, permissions, and return behavior, leaving gaps in contextual completeness.

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 full descriptions for both parameters (id = wiki ID, comment = Comment text) with 100% coverage, so the description adds little beyond that. The reference to the history endpoint does not clarify parameter syntax or constraints, leaving the schema to do the heavy lifting.

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 to a wiki' – a specific verb and resource. The additional note about posting via the history endpoint further distinguishes this tool from sibling comment tools for other entities (e.g., userstory, task) and from the wiki comment deletion tool.

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 implies when to use this tool (when a comment needs to be added to a wiki) but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over alternatives or any exclusions. There is no mention of prerequisites or conflicts with sibling tools like taiga_wiki_comment_delete.

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