add_comment

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond the basic action. It omits information about permissions, whether the comment is created immediately, or any side effects, which is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 no wasted words. It directly states the tool's purpose without fluff, which is appropriate for a simple add operation.

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?

The description is minimal and does not mention optional parameters like summonees or full_description, nor does it explain when to use this tool. However, the schema covers all parameters and an output schema exists, so the core operation is clear. It lacks behavioral context, but overall it's minimally complete for a straightforward action.

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 is fully described (100% coverage) with parameter descriptions for issue_key, text, fields, summonees, output_format, and full_description. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the schema is sufficient, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Add') and resource ('comment to an issue'), clearly distinguishing from siblings like update_comment, delete_comment, and add_entity_comment by specifying the target as an issue.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add_entity_comment or import_comment. It simply names the action, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name.

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