comment_on_issue

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It confirms the tool adds a comment and supports markdown, but does not mention side effects (e.g., notifications), permissions, or idempotency. The behavior is minimally clear but leaves gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence states the core function; the second provides usage context. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 tool is simple (2 required params, no output schema), so the description is adequate but not thorough. Missing details like whether comments are appended, notification behavior, or character limits. Completeness is acceptable but could be better.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no new meaning beyond repeating 'markdown supported' and 'issue identifier like REF-123', which are already in the schema.

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 ('Add a markdown comment') and the resource ('Linear issue'). It distinguishes from siblings like update_issue and get_issue by specifying that it records comments rather than modifying issue fields or reading data.

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 indicates when to use the tool ('record findings, decisions, or progress'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like update_issue for editing issue description. Usage context is implied but exclusions are absent.

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