add_design_element_comment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that comments support markdown and are capped at 5000 characters, and the verb 'Add' clearly implies a non-destructive mutation. It does not mention permissions or return values, but these are less critical for a simple comment-add operation.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and resource, with parenthetical constraints. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 straightforward create-type tool with three required parameters, the description covers the core operation and a key constraint. However, it does not mention any connection to project or element IDs, nor does it address when to use this versus the sibling 'add_comment' tool. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to the 'text' parameter by noting markdown and character limits, but it does not clarify the 'element_id' and 'project_id' parameters beyond their self-explanatory names. While those names are intuitive, the description still leaves some semantic burden on the agent.

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 the verb 'Add' and the resource 'design element' clearly, making it unambiguous what action is performed and on what. It also provides distinguishing details (markdown support, 5000 char limit) that go beyond a bare label.

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 usage context is implied by the resource type ('design element'), which tells the agent when to use this tool. However, there is no explicit mention of alternatives or exclusions, such as noting that 'add_comment' is for work items instead.

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