add_issue_comment

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action, omitting crucial details like side effects (e.g., notifications triggered), prerequisites (e.g., issue must exist), or whether the comment is appended or inserted at a specific position.

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: a single sentence that immediately states the tool's action. No filler or redundant information.

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 6 parameters (many optional) and no output schema, the description should explain return value or typical usage. It lacks guidance on prerequisites (e.g., issue existence) or output (e.g., created comment ID).

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 description coverage is 100%, and each parameter has clear descriptions (e.g., organization hints at using list_organizations). The main description adds no parameter details but the baseline is met at 3.

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 verb 'Adds' and the resource 'comment to an issue', making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_pull_request_comment and add_wiki by specifying '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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., update_issue for modifying comments?). There is no mention of when not to use or which parameters (issueId vs issueKey) to prefer in what context.

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