jira_add_comment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that plain text is converted to Jira ADF, which is a meaningful behavior beyond the schema. However, it does not mention potential side effects, permissions, or idempotency, leaving some gaps 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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. Every word serves a purpose with no wasted text. It is concise and well-structured.

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?

The tool is simple with only two required parameters, both documented in the schema. The description covers the core function and adds a key behavioral detail (ADF conversion). An output schema exists to handle return values, so the description does not need to explain them. The context is complete for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 input schema already covers both parameters with examples and descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds value by specifying that the 'comment' parameter expects plain text, which will be converted to ADF. This clarifies the input format beyond what the schema states.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Adds a comment to an issue.' It uses a specific verb ('adds') and resource ('comment to an issue'), and the mention of plain text converting to Jira ADF adds a distinctive detail that differentiates it from sibling tools like jira_log_work or jira_get_issue.

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 implies its usage context: use when you need to add a comment to a Jira issue. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide any exclusions. There are no sibling tools for adding comments, so the usage is fairly clear but not explicitly guided.

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