Add a comment to a specific task by providing its ID and the comment text, enabling direct communication and updates on task details.
Add a comment to a task.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| taskId | Yes | Task UUID | |
| content | Yes | Comment text |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.1Does 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 only states the mutation ('add a comment') and does not mention side effects, required permissions, behavior for missing or invalid taskId, or any constraints on content. This is a significant gap 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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant wording. Every word contributes, and it is appropriately sized for a simple two-parameter tool.
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 simple and the required parameters are fully described, so an agent can make a plausible call from this alone. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits return/error behavior and write-operation caveats, making it only minimally complete.
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?
The schema already describes both parameters fully ('Task UUID' and 'Comment text'), with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning about formats, length limits, or semantic details beyond what the schema provides.
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 the operation explicitly with a specific verb ('Add'), resource ('comment'), and target ('task'). The name taskhub_comment_add is reinforced rather than merely repeated, and it is clearly distinct from sibling taskhub_comments, which appears to be a listing/read operation.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this over alternatives is given. The verb-resource combination implies the use case, and no other sibling tool appears to add comments, but there is no stated prerequisite, condition, or exclusion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.