create_comment

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

The description states the comment will be created with body and status, and mentions threading via parent. However, with no annotations, it does not disclose potential side effects, permissions needed, or return value behavior. This is adequate but lacks deeper transparency.

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?

Three sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose directly. The second and third sentences add essential usage guidance and parameter context without redundancy.

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 covers the creation action and parameter details well. However, it does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., the created comment object), which is a gap given no output schema. Error cases also not mentioned.

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 coverage is 100% (baseline 3). The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: explains the parent parameter's role for threading and char limit workaround, notes body's max length, and clarifies that spaceId must be the ID not name, and environmentId defaults to 'master'.

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 'Create a new comment on an entry', specifying the verb ('create') and resource ('comment'). It also mentions threaded replies via parent ID, distinguishing it from update/delete/get comments.

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 explains when to use the parent parameter (to create threaded conversations or work around the 512-character limit), providing clear usage context. It does not explicitly list when not to use the tool, but the purpose is well defined.

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