jira_post_comment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool supports plain text with paragraphs separated by blank lines, which is a useful format constraint. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, authentication requirements, error behavior, or whether the comment is immediately visible, leaving some behavioral aspects implicit.

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 three concise sentences that front-load the primary action and then provide context. Every sentence contributes value without repetition or fluff. It is appropriately sized for a simple two-parameter tool.

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 tool with two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential context: what it does, when to use it, and the input format. It does not explain return values, but none are expected here. It could mention whether the comment is appended to an existing thread, but the lack of output schema makes this less critical.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters (body and issueKey). The description adds usage context but does not add new meaning about the parameters themselves. The text about plain text and paragraphs aligns with the body schema description, but does not go beyond it.

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 tool posts a comment to a Jira story, using a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like jira_update_story_status and jira_search_stories, as no other sibling handles comments. The provided use cases reinforce the purpose without ambiguity.

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 explicitly lists when to use the tool: 'to document deployment results, ask for clarification, or provide status updates.' This provides clear context and avoids confusion with sibling tools, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. The guidance is sufficient for an agent to select this tool for comment-related actions.

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