Add Comment

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds the useful detail that it 'goes through the same optimistic-concurrency path as a normal update,' which alerts the agent to potential concurrency failures, a dimension not covered by the annotations.

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, both purposeful. The first states the action and target; the second provides a critical behavioral caveat. No wasted words.

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 mutation with 3 parameters, the description covers the action, target types, and a key behavioral detail. It omits any mention of the return value or error conditions, but the absence of an output schema makes this acceptable, and the annotation hints cover idempotency and destructiveness.

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 33% (only the 'id' parameter has a description). The description mentions the resource types (which duplicate the enum) and indicates 'comment' is the text being added, but it does not provide deeper semantics beyond what the schema already offers.

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 specific verb ('Add') and resource ('a comment to an epic, user story, task, or issue'). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like comment_edit and comment_delete by establishing it is for creating a new comment.

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?

Provides clear context on which resources are valid (epic, user story, task, issue) but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives. The sibling list includes comment_edit and comment_delete, so the add vs. edit/delete distinction is inferable but not spelled out.

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