comment_issue

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

The description adds a meaningful behavioral detail beyond the annotations: 'The comment body is sent through stdin and is not written to the audit log.' This is valuable transparency about side effects. However, with no destructive/idempotent hints provided (all false) and no read-only annotation, the description doesn't clarify whether adding a comment is reversible or what happens on failure. The stdin note adds context but other behavioral traits (auth requirements, rate limits) are not disclosed.

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 sentences total, both carrying substantive information. No filler, no repetition of what the schema already provides. Efficiently front-loaded with the core action first, then the important stdin/audit-log disclosure.

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 four-required-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and weak schema descriptions, the description could be richer. It explains the body input mechanism (stdin, no audit log) which is genuinely useful. However, it doesn't clarify parameter semantics for account/issueNumber/hostname, nor explain what successful invocation looks like given no output schema exists. The audit-log note is a good behavioral detail but completeness for such a low-coverage schema is only partial.

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 only 20% (only 'repository' has a description: 'Repository in owner/name format'). The description mentions 'comment body is sent through stdin' which relates to the body parameter, adding context. However, parameters like account, issueNumber, and hostname are undocumented in both schema and description. The description partially compensates for the coverage gap with the stdin note but leaves most fields unexplained.

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 adds a comment to an issue ('Add a comment to an issue in an allowed repository'), with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like comment_pull_request and create_issue by specifying 'comment' and 'issue'. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with list_issue_comments or other sibling comment tools, though the action verb is distinct enough.

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 phrase 'allowed repository' implies access is restricted to certain repos, giving the agent a scoping hint. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this vs. alternatives (e.g., comment_pull_request for PRs, create_issue for new issues). The usage context is implied rather than stated.

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