Add Jira issue comment

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

Annotations already declare a non-destructive, open-world write operation. The description adds useful auth context by saying the comment is added as the authenticated Jira user, but it does not explain permissions, success behavior, or return value.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The action and actor are stated immediately.

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 two-parameter mutation, the description plus annotations cover the core action and safety profile. However, with no output schema and undocumented parameters, it leaves some gaps around expected inputs and response behavior.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It only implies issueKey and body through 'issue' and 'comment'; it does not explain the expected issue key format or comment body constraints.

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 states a specific verb and resource: add a comment to a Jira issue. It is clearly distinguishable from list-comments siblings, though it does not explicitly compare with confluence_add_comment or jira_add_worklog.

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?

It implies when the tool is relevant by naming the action, but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus jira_list_comments, jira_add_worklog, or confluence_add_comment. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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