jira_add_comment

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

The description explains that text is sent in plain text and converted to the API format preserving line breaks, which adds some behavioral context. However, with no annotations provided, the description does not cover potential side effects, auth requirements, or error handling (e.g., what if the issue doesn't exist).

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 consists of two concise sentences. The first states the core purpose, and the second adds a relevant processing detail. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is somewhat minimal. For a write tool, it could mention success indicators (e.g., returns comment object) or common constraints. However, for a simple comment-adding operation, it provides the essential information.

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 input schema already has 100% coverage with descriptions, but the description adds value by clarifying that the body is processed as plain text with line breaks preserved. This augments the schema's generic 'Texto del comentario' with practical formatting details.

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 action (adds a comment) and the resource (Jira issue). The verb 'añade' and resource 'comentario a un issue' are specific, and the tool is easily distinguishable from siblings like jira_create_issue or jira_update_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., when to add a comment vs. a worklog). There are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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