add_comment

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic action without mentioning permissions, whether the comment is appended or replaces, or any side effects. The output schema existence is not leveraged to describe return values.

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 concise (two sentences plus an Args section). However, the Args section uses non-standard formatting (adapted from docstring) rather than a clean prose description. No 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?

For a simple 2-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers parameter semantics but omits behavioral details like whether the comment is added to the issue's existing comments or replaces them, or any authorization requirements. Adequate but not thorough.

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 description adds meaning beyond the schema: 'issue_key' is explained with an example ('PROJ-123') and 'comment' is described as 'plain text / Jira wiki markup'. Given 0% schema coverage, this significantly aids understanding.

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 'Add a comment to a Jira issue' using a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('comment' with target 'Jira issue'). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'create_issue' or 'add_worklog'.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to add a comment versus update an issue or add a worklog. The description lacks any contextual advice on prerequisites or exclusions.

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