Add Comment to Jira Issue

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

Annotations already declare the mutation and open-world profile (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing the return payload ({ok, commentId}) and the fact that the body renders as markdown, though it says nothing about duplicate-comment behavior or notification side effects.

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?

Three short sentences with zero filler: action first, input format second, return shape last. Every clause carries information an agent needs before calling.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, input format, and return shape, which is enough to invoke it correctly. Error behavior and permission requirements are the only notable omissions, and annotations partly cover the latter.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description goes further than the schema by enumerating the supported markdown constructs (headings, tables, code fences, lists) that the body parameter accepts. issueKey semantics (the PROJ-123 pattern) are left entirely to the schema, which already handles them well.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource ("Add a comment to a Jira issue"), which is unambiguous and cannot be confused with any sibling such as jcm_createIssue or jcm_editIssue. It does not explicitly name or contrast with siblings, so it lands just short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied by the purpose statement — there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite guidance (e.g., required permissions or whether the issue must be open). Since no sibling tool offers a comparable commenting action, the lack of alternatives is low-risk, keeping this at a minimum-viable 3.

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