import_comment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It mentions preserving original timestamp and author, but omits details about permissions, idempotency, side effects on issue timelines, validation of author existence, or error handling. The schema provides some constraints (e.g., created_at interval), but the description adds little beyond that.

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 sentence that conveys the core purpose with no filler. It is front-loaded and every word contributes to understanding.

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 output schema and parameter descriptions provide strong structural context, so the minimal description is acceptable for basic invocation. However, given the presence of the sibling add_comment, more explicit guidance on when to use import_comment would improve completeness. Behavioral gaps (e.g., permissions) also reduce the overall contextual richness.

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%, and the schema already explains each parameter's meaning, including the date constraint. The description adds no new parameter semantics but is not required to compensate given excellent 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 ('Import') and the resource ('a comment'), and the phrase 'with original timestamp and author' distinguishes this from sibling tools like add_comment, which creates a new comment with current metadata. The verb and object are immediately understandable.

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 usage when preserving the original timestamp and author is required, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over add_comment or mention any exclusions. No alternatives are named, so guidance is only implicit.

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