Create Epic Comment

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden but only states the action. It does not disclose side effects, confirmation requirements (e.g., the 'confirm' parameter), auth needs, or return behavior. This is a significant gap for a write operation.

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 a single, direct sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded and every word contributes meaning, making it highly concise and easy to parse.

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?

This is a nearly complete absence of context beyond the basic action. The description omits the confirmation gate, the optional author_id, dry-run behavior, and any description of the return value (no output schema exists). The agent cannot safely invoke this tool without further 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?

Schema description coverage is only 20% (only 'confirm' has a description). The tool description adds no parameter details: it does not clarify the role of 'text', 'epic_id', 'author_id', or 'dry_run'. While the name implies epic_id and text, other parameters remain undocumented.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and identifies the resource ('comment on a Shortcut epic'), making it unambiguous. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like create_story_comment, which targets stories, and list_epic_comments, which is for reading.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource name but the description offers no explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance. It does not state, for example, to use this tool when commenting on an epic versus create_story_comment for stories, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites.

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