Create a comment on a card

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's a non-destructive write. The description adds that it appends a comment to a card, but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits (e.g., if comments are limited, or if the comment is appended to a thread). It does not contradict annotations.

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 extremely concise: two lines of purpose and a brief example. It is front-loaded with the action and lists arguments clearly. No superfluous text; every sentence is necessary.

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 simple tool (no output schema, two mandatory parameters), the description covers the core purpose and parameters. It could be slightly improved by explicitly stating that the card must exist or that the comment is appended immediately. However, the example and clarity make it fairly 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 lacks descriptions for the parameters (coverage 0%), but the description provides meaningful context: 'card ObjectId' and 'the comment body'. This clarifies the meaning beyond the schema's pattern and length constraints, which is especially valuable given the lack of schema descriptions.

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 title and description clearly state the tool creates a comment on a card ('Add a comment to a card'). The verb 'create' and resource 'comment on a card' are specific and distinct from sibling tools like kanbanzone_create_card or kanbanzone_create_checklist.

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 like updating a card or adding a checklist. It does not specify prerequisites (e.g., the card must exist) or when not to use it. The example is helpful but insufficient for decision-making.

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