add_comment

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

No annotations are provided. The description mentions 'Real-time' and visibility, but does not disclose side effects, permissions, or error behavior. It adds moderate behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 lengthy with detailed writing style guidelines. While valuable, it could be more concise. The first sentence effectively states the purpose, but the rest adds bulk.

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 tool is simple with two parameters and no output schema. The description covers purpose and usage style well, but omits error handling, success response, and prerequisites. Adequate but not 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?

Schema coverage is 50% (body is described, card_id is not). The description elaborates on body content (plain English, audience) but offers no additional meaning for card_id. It partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 'Post a comment on an issue' and adds 'Real-time, visible to anyone watching the board.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_comments and create_issue.

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 provides audience guidelines (testers and project owners) and writing style tips, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No alternative tools are named.

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