Comment on a card

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint false). The description adds that the action is performed as the authenticated user and that comments are preserved in card history, which is useful behavioral context. It does not cover potential failures or side effects, so a 3 is appropriate given the annotations.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence adds value: one states the action and Markdown support, the other provides usage context and persistence. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 with only 2 required parameters and no output schema. The description covers what it does, as whom, and when it is appropriate to use, plus the key aspect of persistence. It does not mention the return value, but given the simplicity and the presence of annotations, the description is reasonably complete.

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 already provides full descriptions for both parameters (card_id and text), including a note that Markdown is supported. The description's mention of 'text is Markdown' merely restates the schema's existing description, so no additional semantics are added. With 100% coverage, the baseline of 3 is correct.

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 opens with 'Post a comment on a card', which is a specific verb and resource, and clarifies it is done as the authenticated Trello user. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_label or archive_card, which have different actions.

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 states 'Comments are the right place for context and decisions' and notes they are preserved in card history, giving clear contextual guidance on when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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