add_comment

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral transparency. It only says 'adds a comment', but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as required permissions, side effects, or whether the operation is idempotent. For a mutating tool, this is a significant gap.

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 sentence that conveys the core action efficiently. It is appropriately sized, though the use of Spanish might slightly hinder universal understanding.

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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what the tool returns or any constraints on the parameters (e.g., limits on content length). For a simple tool this might be borderline, but it lacks completeness expected by an AI agent.

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?

All three parameters are described in the input schema with brief descriptions (ID del board, ID de la card, Texto del comentario). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3, and no extra value is added.

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 'Agrega un comentario a una card' clearly states the action (adds) and the resource (comment to a card), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like create_card or delete_card, which have different purposes. However, the description is in Spanish while the tool name is in English, which might slightly reduce clarity for some agents.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply states what it does without any context on prerequisites, when not to use it, or comparison to similar tools. This leaves the agent with insufficient information for appropriate selection.

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