jira_comment

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains that list returns YAML, add posts body, and that body and body_path are mutually exclusive. It could be more explicit about side effects of add (creating) and permissions, but overall provides good 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?

The description is a single paragraph with concise sentences, front-loading the main purpose and then detailing parameters and related tools. No 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?

Given 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is fairly complete. It covers all actions, parameter usage, output format (YAML), and points to related tools. Could mention permissions or error cases but sufficient for typical use.

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%, and the description adds meaningful context beyond schema: explains that list returns YAML, body is JFM markdown, body_path is an alternative, limit=0 means unlimited, and reinforces mutual exclusivity of body/body_path. Also gives example key PROJ-123.

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 manages JIRA comments with two actions: list and add. It differentiates itself from sibling jira_comment_edit for editing, and provides context on resolving author IDs using jira_user_get.

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?

Explicitly states when to use the tool (list/add actions) and when not to (for editing, use jira_comment_edit). It provides the prerequisite of needing comment id from list output for editing, and mentions resolving author IDs with jira_user_get.

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