add_comment

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

Goes beyond annotations by specifying the Markdown-to-rich-text conversion rule (which constructs convert, which stay literal), the return shape matching get_comments, and the key limitation that this server cannot edit or delete the comment afterward. idempotentHint=false already implied each call creates a new record; the description enriches that with the no-edit/delete constraint.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: purpose, body format, return shape, limitation. The purpose is front-loaded. The Markdown enumeration is slightly long but necessary for precision about what converts versus what stays literal.

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?

Covers purpose, body semantics, return shape (reinforced by the existing output schema), and the post-creation limitation. What's absent — permission requirements, error cases, validation of the issue key — is peripheral for a comment-creation tool and the output schema already documents the return value.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does substantially for body by detailing the accepted Markdown subset and conversion behavior. issue_key receives no explicit treatment, but it is highly self-explanatory in a Jira context (e.g., PROJ-123), so the omission is minor.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Add one comment to an issue.' This clearly distinguishes it from read siblings (get_comments, get_issue, search_issues) and mutation siblings (update_issue, transition_issue) because 'add' uniquely signals comment creation.

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 purpose statement implies when to use it — when a comment needs to be created — but there is no explicit when-not guidance or mention of alternatives. The sibling set is mostly reads and other mutations, so the distinct verb mostly self-selects, yet the description never names a condition that would rule it out in favor of another tool.

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