add_issue_comment

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

The description adds one behavioral detail: the comment appears as posted by the authenticated user. With no annotations provided, it carries the full burden, but it lacks other potentially relevant disclosures (e.g., permissions, effects on closed issues) that could aid the agent.

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 concise, consisting of two purposeful sentences. It front-loads the primary action and includes a practical usage tip without any wasted words.

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 comment-adding tool with four well-described parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and one behavioral aspect. It is nearly complete, though it could mention restrictions or exceptions (e.g., requiring an open issue) to be fully exhaustive.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, but it does align 'text comment' with the text parameter, providing minimal added value.

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's function: adding a text comment to an issue discussion thread. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_issue_comments (viewing) and create_issue (creating issues) by using a specific verb and resource.

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 provides a clear usage context and explicitly advises using list_issue_comments first to see existing comments. However, it does not mention when not to use the tool or suggest alternatives for editing/deleting comments.

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