add_pr_comment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It clearly conveys the primary side effect: posting a comment. However, it does not disclose whether permissions are required, whether the comment is posted as the authenticated user, whether the operation is reversible, or what the response contains.

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, concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and format, earning its place entirely.

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 three-parameter mutation tool, the description gives enough to understand the tool's core purpose, but it omits any mention of return value, required permissions, or side effects beyond posting. Since there is no output schema and no annotations, slightly more context would improve 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 documents repo_slug and pr_id, and content is left generic. The description adds meaningful semantics by specifying that content should be a Markdown comment, which clarifies the otherwise undocumented content parameter and partially compensates for the 67% 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 uses a specific verb (Post), a clear resource (comment on a pull request), and notes the Markdown format. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like list_pr_comments, get_pr_comment, and update_pr_comment, since 'Post' unambiguously means creating a new comment.

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 states the action but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as update_pr_comment or resolve_pr_comment. It does not mention that this is only for new comments, nor does it exclude cases where a comment already exists.

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