jira_add_comment

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=false already tells the agent this is a mutation. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral caveat (Server expects wiki markup, not Markdown), but says nothing about permission requirements, notification side effects, or whether the comment can be edited afterwards.

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?

A single compact line with the key formatting gotcha front-loaded; no wasted words. It is a fragment rather than a full sentence, which slightly limits readability but not utility.

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?

Only two required, fully documented parameters and an output schema, so little is required of the description. It covers the main pitfall (markup format) but omits any mutation context such as permissions or side effects, leaving it minimally adequate.

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 description coverage is 100% – both 'key' (with an issue-key pattern) and 'body' are documented in the schema, and the description merely repeats the body formatting note. Baseline 3 is correct since the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 and resource ('Add a comment'), which is unambiguous against the sibling read/update/delete comment tools. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the tool name plus description make the add-vs-update-vs-delete distinction obvious.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus jira_update_comment or jira_delete_comment, and no prerequisites stated (e.g. comment permission on the issue). The only usable signal is the verb itself, so context is entirely implied.

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