jira_add_comment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that the operation is a mutation through the verb 'Adds' and the POST method, but says nothing about side effects (e.g., watcher notifications), required permissions, or whether the created comment is returned. This is thin for a write operation.

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 short sentence that front-loads the action and appends a high-value endpoint reference. There is no filler; every element earns its place.

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 tool is structurally simple (2 required params, no output schema), but with zero annotations and 0% schema description coverage the description must do more. It leaves the body format ambiguous and gives no indication of return values or failure modes, so an agent could invoke it with a malformed comment payload.

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 compensate. The endpoint's '{key}' segment gives a useful hint that the required issueIdOrKey is the Jira issue key used in the URL path, but the body parameter — which accepts either a string or an object — is left entirely unexplained, leaving ambiguity about whether to send plain text, markdown, or ADF.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — 'Adds a comment' — and pins the exact operation with the REST endpoint 'POST /rest/api/3/issue/{key}/comment'. The '{key}' path segment makes clear this targets a Jira issue's comments, distinguishing it from comment siblings like confluence_create_inline_comment and from jira_add_worklog without opening any schema.

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?

Usage context is only implied: the 'jira' namespace in the name and the '/issue/{key}/comment' endpoint signal this is for adding a comment to a Jira issue. There is no explicit routing versus alternatives such as jira_add_worklog or confluence_create_footer_comment, and no exclusions or prerequisites like required comment permissions.

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