Add comment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does so thoroughly. It discloses the default non-waking behavior, the opt-in agent run semantics, the required OAuth scope, and the side effect on todo task state — all beyond what the schema states.

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 tightly written sentences with no filler: purpose first, then the agent-spend nuance, then auth and side-effect. Every sentence earns its place and the most important differentiator (no provider spend by default) is front-loaded.

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?

Covers purpose, auth, default versus agent-run behavior, and the non-obvious task-state side effect, which are the essentials for calling this mutation tool. It does not describe the response shape or idempotency_key behavior, but those are minor gaps given the simple operation.

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 80%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description mostly echoes start_agent_run semantics already present in the schema and adds no new meaning for key, body, or pinned; idempotency_key remains undocumented in both the schema and description.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Post a comment on a task,' which clearly identifies the operation and separates it from read-only siblings like get-comments and from task-mutation tools like update-task. The mention of 'thread' and agent behavior further reinforces the intended function.

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 invocation context: requires comments:write scope, explains the default no-agent-spend behavior versus start_agent_run=true, and warns that a comment moves a todo task to in_progress. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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