tea_create_comment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the core action without mentioning side effects, permissions, authentication needs, or return behavior. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 a single, clear sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. There is no wasted verbiage, and it is well-structured for fast parsing.

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 description is minimal but the schema fully documents parameters. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description does not clarify what happens after a comment is added (e.g., return value, possible errors). For a simple mutation tool, this is an acceptable but not complete level of context.

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 has 100% coverage, providing descriptions for body, repo, and index. The description does not add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states. The baseline score of 3 applies here.

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 action ('Add a comment') and the target resource ('issue or pull request'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like tea_issue_view, tea_issue_close, and tea_pr_create, none of which handle comments. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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 implicitly indicates when to use the tool (whenever a comment needs to be added), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. Since there is no sibling comment tool, the usage context is clear enough, but the guidance is not explicit as per the rubric.

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