add_comment

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that Markdown is supported and that an identifier is needed, but does not mention side effects, permissions, reversibility, or what happens on success or failure. For a mutation tool, this is a notable gap.

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 and front-loaded. The primary action appears in the first sentence, followed by Markdown support and identifier guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no 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?

The description provides enough for a basic call: identifier format and the action are clear. However, with no output schema, it does not explain the return value or any error conditions. For a simple write operation this is minimally adequate but still incomplete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It meaningfully defines 'identifier' as a human issue identifier with an example, and notes that Markdown is supported for the body. However, 'body' itself is not explicitly described as the comment text, though it is inferable.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Post a comment on a Linear issue.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_comments, create_issue, and update_issue. The tool's action is unambiguous.

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 description clearly implies when to use the tool: when a comment needs to be added to an existing Linear issue. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use it, but the action is distinct enough among siblings that the usage context is clear.

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