bitrix24_task_comment_add

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

Discloses behavioral traits beyond annotations (none provided): uses legacy forum API, posts to both chat and comment section, returns numeric ID to keep, requires a specific ending line ('(написано агентом)'), and explains BBCode limitations like Markdown not supported.

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 long but every sentence adds necessary context; it is well-structured with purpose, behavior, return value, usage tips, formatting rules, and a required disclosure. Could be slightly tighter but still efficient.

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 tool's complexity (two parameters, no output schema), the description fully explains the required usage pattern, return value, formatting nuances, and behavioral implications. No gaps remain.

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 covers 100% of parameters, baseline 3. Description adds significant value by detailing BBCode patterns, the required disclosure line, and the text parameter's formatting constraints beyond the schema's short description.

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 states verbatim 'Add a comment to a Bitrix24 task' and distinguishes from siblings by explaining the return ID's usage for update/delete tools and explicitly separating file attachment via bitrix24_task_attach_file.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: do not inline files, follow typical pattern (attach then comment), BBCode not Markdown, required disclosure line, and notes that [*]/[LIST] only work in descriptions. Clearly separates when to use this vs sibling tools.

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