bb_pr_comment

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

Annotations show this is a mutating, non-destructive operation, and the description aligns. It adds valuable behavior beyond annotations: file_path and line must be paired for inline anchoring, parent_id enables replies, and omitting both creates a general comment.

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 focused sentences with no wasted words. The core action is front-loaded, and the conditional placement rules are compressed into a clear, scannable structure.

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 covers all three behavioral modes of the tool and the conditions that trigger them. Combined with full schema coverage and an output schema, nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, but the description adds parameter-relationship semantics not visible from individual schemas. It explicitly explains the coupling of file_path and line, the purpose of parent_id, and what happens when neither is supplied.

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?

States a specific verb ('Add a comment') and resource ('pull request'), making the core action unambiguous. It also differentiates itself from sibling tools like bb_pr_list_comments and bb_pr_resolve_thread by being the creation endpoint, and clarifies the three placement modes inline, reply, and general.

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 for when to use the tool: commenting on a pull request. The description also gives operational guidance for the three comment modes (inline, reply, general), though it does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternative tools.

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