Comments

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

Beyond the annotations, the description reveals a key behavioral nuance: 'Taiga soft-deletes comments on delete'. This explains how deletes behave and makes the includeDeleted parameter meaningful. It also implies deletion might be reversible, which adds context not available from the annotations alone.

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 introductory sentence followed by a compact, readable table. Every piece of content in the table contributes to understanding operation-specific argument requirements, with no fluff or repetition of schema details. The purpose is front-loaded in the first clause.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 params, no output schema, 4 operations), the description provides a complete operation-by-operation breakdown of required and optional arguments. The soft-delete note and the includeDeleted parameter are explained in a way that leaves nothing ambiguous.

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 already covers all parameter descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description's operation matrix adds value by showing which parameters are conditionally required for each 'op' (e.g., commentId only for edit/delete, text only for add/edit), which the schema does not convey. This extra relational information raises the score above baseline.

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 opens with a clear verb phrase ('List, add, edit, or delete') and names the exact resource types (issues, user stories, tasks, epics, wiki pages). It unambiguously identifies this tool as the comment-handling tool, separating it from siblings like 'attachments' and 'wiki'.

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 operation table gives explicit guidance on which arguments are required for each operation (list vs. add vs. edit vs. delete), helping an agent assemble calls correctly. It lacks an explicit statement of when not to use this tool, but the operations are self-explanatory and no true alternative exists among the listed siblings.

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