bb_create_pull_request_comment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it reveals only the return value and the inline/plain distinction. It does not disclose side effects, strict legacy validation of 'text', review-policy filtering of severity, or behavior when replying via parentCommentId—critical traits for a mutation tool.

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 three short sentences with the main purpose front-loaded and no filler. It loses a point because the inline-citation sentence introduces an inaccurate parameter name, which makes the concise phrasing less reliable.

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?

This is an 18-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, yet the description only covers basic inline vs text comments. It omits the structured-finding variant, reply flow, anchor diff/file/type options, and the strict validation on free-form text, so an agent cannot confidently invoke all supported behaviors from this description alone.

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 83%, so the schema does most of the parameter documentation; the description adds useful grouping (inline vs plain text) but refers to a non-existent property, 'anchoredTo', where the schema actually defines 'anchoredToFile'. That naming mismatch offsets the added value, keeping this at the baseline.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource, 'Add a comment on a PR,' which unambiguously identifies the create operation and distinguishes it from sibling update/delete/list/resolve comment tools. The closing 'Returns the created comment' confirms the operation's purpose and expected result.

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 gives clear usage context by separating the two main modes: inline comments require an anchor (file path + line + lineType) while plain text goes in 'text'. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when-not-to-use, but 'Add' is sufficiently distinct from the update/delete/approve siblings.

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