jira_add_comment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'Requires explicit confirmation,' which merely reinforces the schema's confirm parameter. It does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, result format, or error behavior, leaving significant gaps 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?

The description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the action. Every word is purposeful, and it earns its place by stating the core operation and highlighting the confirmation requirement without any filler.

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 has no output schema, so the description should explain return values or success/failure semantics, but it does not. It also lacks broader context such as mutation effects, expected input details, or when to use it. Given the minimal schema annotations, this description is insufficient for a Jira write operation.

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 only 33% (only confirm has a description), and the tool description does not compensate. It describes the comment as 'plain-text,' which adds minor meaning, but it does not clarify issueKey aside from the schema regex, nor does it explain the confirm parameter's necessity or exact behavior beyond what the schema already states.

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 the action ('Add') and the resource ('a plain-text comment to a Jira issue'). It is specific and immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like jira_list_comments or jira_add_worklog, which involve different operations or resources.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or contrast with sibling tools like jira_add_worklog or jira_list_comments, leaving the agent without enough context to select it appropriately in ambiguous situations.

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