planka_add_comment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a mutation ('Add') but does not mention permissions, idempotency, side effects, or what the response contains. This is a significant gap for a write operation with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Two short sentences convey the action and use cases without any wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 two-parameter tool with no nested objects and no output schema, the definition gives enough context to invoke it correctly. It does not describe return values or side effects, but the use-case framing and schema coverage make the tool's operation reasonably complete.

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%, so both parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no extra parameter-level detail, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema handles the parameter semantics sufficiently.

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 specific verb-resource pairing: 'Add a comment to a card.' This clearly identifies the action and target, and naturally distinguishes it from sibling tools like planka_get_comments and planka_set_card_labels.

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 phrase 'Use this for status updates, notes, or agent activity logs' gives practical context for when to invoke the tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the intended use cases are clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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