asana_add_comment

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

Annotations only state readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds critical behavioral detail: the /stories endpoint escapes html_text into literal tags, and literal newline sequences are auto-converted. It also advises when to use the risky format. None of these are derivable from annotations alone, so the description substantially enhances 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded, opening with the action and purpose before moving to necessary caveats. It contains no filler and every clause earns its place. The two-sentence structure is efficient and highly scannable.

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?

For a three-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It explains the story terminology, the important text-versus-HTML behavior, and gives clear guidance on parameter usage. Combined with the schema and annotations, an agent has all the information needed to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, so every parameter already has detailed descriptions. The tool-level description mostly restates the schema's warnings about text and html_text, adding the small decision rule 'Pass html_text only if you accept that.' This is a minor increment over the schema, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('comment/story to a task'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like asana_add_tag or asana_add_follower by naming the exact object being created. The parenthetical '(story)' makes it clear what kind of entity is added.

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 clear usage guidance, strongly recommending plain text and specifying when html_text is acceptable. Although it does not explicitly compare against alternative tools, no obvious alternative comment-creation tool exists in the sibling list. The guidance effectively communicates when this tool and each parameter should be used.

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