add_comment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write nature is known. The description adds a genuinely non-obvious behavioral requirement — display the comment text for user confirmation before calling — which is context the annotations do not provide.

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 short sentences, with the action stated first and the mutation warning immediately after. No filler, no redundancy — every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the annotations cover the read/write profile. The gap is the summonees parameter plus the absence of any note on comment visibility or who may comment, leaving a simple tool slightly under-specified.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden, and it only implicitly covers issue_id and text. The summonees parameter (users to mention/notify) is entirely undocumented in both description and schema, and its semantics are not inferable from the name alone.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Добавить комментарий к задаче'), which is enough to tell it apart from list_comments or create_issue by action type. It does not, however, explicitly name a sibling or scope boundary the way a top-scoring description would.

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?

It supplies one concrete precondition — show the text to the user before invoking, since it mutates Tracker data. There is no guidance on when to choose this over alternatives (e.g., update_issue, add_worklog) or any exclusion conditions, so usage is only partially covered.

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