paperclip_add_comment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention that this is a write operation (though 'add' implies it), any permission requirements, or whether the comment is appended immediately. It also doesn't state any side effects, like notifications or logging. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 a single, concise sentence with no filler. It's appropriately short and front-loaded, but it lacks depth. It earns a 4 because it is efficient, though it could add more useful context without becoming verbose.

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?

Given that there is no output schema and only 2 parameters, the tool is relatively simple. However, without annotations, the description should clarify expected behavior, such as whether the comment is appended, any formatting requirements, or error conditions like nonexistent issues. It currently provides the bare minimum.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('content' as 'Comment content' and 'issueId' as 'ID of the issue'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a clear verb ('add') and resource ('comment to an issue'), making the primary function unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like paperclip_list_comments or paperclip_update_issue, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 only says 'add a comment to an issue' without specifying when to use this over alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention that paperclip_list_comments is for viewing comments, or that there might be constraints like needing to be the issue assignee. No context on when not to use it is provided.

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