Add comment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered externally. The description adds nothing beyond that — no detail on return behavior, whether the comment is editable/removable afterward, or any auth/rate-limit constraints, so it contributes almost no behavioral context.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the action front-loaded and zero filler. It is appropriately short for a two-parameter tool, though the brevity edges toward under-specification rather than tightly packed information.

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 two-parameter mutation the schema and annotations cover most needs, but with no output schema the description never says what comes back (e.g., the created comment ID) or whether the body supports markup/mentions. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 100% (both task_id and body are described in the schema, including minLength and exclusiveMinimum constraints), so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds no format, length, or formatting guidance for the comment body beyond what is already documented.

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 ('Post a comment on a Redbooth task'), which is immediately distinguishable from list_comments and the comment-less task/subtask tools. It does not explicitly name a sibling or contrast scope, but the action is unambiguous.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., the task must exist), and no routing to alternatives such as list_comments or update_task. Only the action itself is conveyed.

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