jira_add_comment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions returning the comment URL, but omits important traits such as the need for authentication, the two-step confirmation flow (preview then confirm), and the fact that posting is a mutating action. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences. It front-loads the primary purpose and then provides a useful verification detail without any wasted words.

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 has a non-trivial flow (optional confirmation token) that is not explained in the description. The description is too minimal to fully inform the agent about when to provide confirm_token or how the preview step works, making it incomplete for effective invocation.

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 descriptions already cover 100% of parameters with meaningful definitions (key, body, confirm_token), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no further parameter context, but it is not required given the schema's thoroughness.

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 the tool's function with a specific verb ('Post') and resource ('comment on a Jira issue'), and the distinction from sibling jira_edit_comment is evident. It also adds a concrete outcome (returns the comment URL), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies when to use the tool (to post a comment) but does not explicitly mention alternatives like jira_edit_comment for editing comments, nor does it explain the preview/confirm_token workflow. This leaves usage context somewhat implicit rather than fully guided.

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