add_comment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the core action without mentioning side effects, authentication requirements, idempotency, or whether the comment triggers notifications. For a mutation tool, this level of disclosure is insufficient.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. Every word is necessary, and there is no superfluous content. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool with two parameters.

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 the absence of output schema and the presence of sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., comment ID, success indicator) nor does it provide any contextual cues like typical use cases or order of operations (e.g., first get issue, then add comment). An agent needs more than this minimal description to use the tool reliably.

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% (both parameters have descriptions in the schema). According to the rubric, the baseline is 3 even if the tool description adds no further parameter information. The description does not elaborate on parameter semantics beyond what the schema already 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?

The description is a concise Japanese sentence stating 'Add a comment to a JIRA issue,' which clearly identifies the verb (add) and resource (comment to a JIRA issue). It is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like search_issues, get_issue, create_issue, etc., none of which involve adding comments.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use add_comment versus its siblings, such as whether update_issue can also add comments, or what prerequisites (e.g., issue existence) are needed. This omission leaves the agent without contextual decision support.

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