add_work_package_comment

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

Annotations already declare non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description then adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: OpenProject may aggregate a new comment into an existing journal entry, `details`/`created_at` are omitted unconditionally, `details_omitted` is true, and `user` may be null after a failed follow-up lookup. It stops short of explaining permissions or the preview/confirm write flow.

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 purpose is front-loaded and correct, but the aggregation explanation is a single sprawling multi-clause sentence that reasons through 'no reliable way to tell an aggregated response from a fresh one' at length. The same fact – details/timestamp are always omitted because of journal aggregation – could be stated in a quarter of the text.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so for the tricky parts (omitted fields, `details_omitted`, possibly-null `user`). The remaining gap is that it never says what a successful response otherwise contains and says nothing about `internal` visibility semantics for a mutation tool.

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 40%, so the description should compensate. It clarifies `notify` beyond the bare 'Notify' title, and the schema itself documents `work_package_id` and `confirm`. However, `internal` (internal vs. external visibility) is undocumented in both places and `comment` gets no guidance.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Add a comment to a work package.' Unambiguous, and no sibling tool competes for this action. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings, but the operation is inherently distinct.

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 only usage-adjacent statement is 'notify=false avoids change emails by default,' which is a parameter default rather than when-to-use guidance. Nothing is said about when to prefer an internal comment, when to use this versus editing the work package description, or when the confirm/preview flow matters.

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