amulen_add_comment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation profile is covered structurally. The description adds a genuine behavioral trait beyond that: AMULEN renders the content formatted, and the chosen format controls rendering. It does not say whether the comment is attributed to the authenticated user, whether members are notified, or what is returned.

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?

Two compact sentences with the core action front-loaded and format guidance immediately after. The mixed Spanish/English phrasing ("formato", "texto") is terse but still decodable, and there is no filler.

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 write tool with no output schema, the description covers what to send but not what comes back (e.g., new comment ID), nor error behavior for invalid slugs, nor whether the author is implicit. Annotations handle the safety profile, so the gap is moderate rather than severe.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden. It does explain the formato parameter (markdown default, html, texto with no formatting) and instructs that contenido should be written in Markdown, but project_slug, board_slug, and task_slug are left entirely to the schema titles.

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?

"Add a comment to a task" names a specific verb (add) and resource (comment) scoped to a task, so an agent can distinguish it from sibling tools like amulen_add_checklist_items or amulen_upload_attachment. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 never states when to use this tool versus related tools (e.g., checklist items or attachments) and gives no prerequisites or exclusions. The only guidance offered concerns the output format parameter, which is not a when-to-use rule.

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