jira_comment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that list returns YAML, that authors are Atlassian account IDs (requiring resolution), and that body input has a mutual exclusion constraint. However, it does not describe the return format for `add`, potential side effects, or error conditions, which would be valuable for a mutation tool.

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 dense but each sentence adds value: purpose, actions, input methods, author resolution, and pointer to edit tool. It is slightly long but well-organized, front-loading the core purpose. No superfluous content, but the density could be improved by splitting into fewer clauses.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return values. It states that list returns comments as YAML but does not detail the structure of each comment or what `add` returns. It also omits the behavior of the `limit` parameter (though the schema covers it). Given the tool's complexity and lack of output schema, the description provides a solid foundation but leaves return format and edge cases unspecified.

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 schema already covers all parameters with 100% description coverage, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds significant meaning by explaining the interplay between `body` and `body_path`, the JFM markdown format, and the semantics of `action` values. It also provides a concrete example and cross-references to other tools, going well beyond the schema.

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 issue comments on a specific key, and immediately enumerates the two actions (`list` and `add`). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly naming `jira_comment_edit` for editing and `jira_user_get` for resolving author IDs, making its scope 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?

The description provides explicit usage guidance: it explains when to use `list` vs `add`, when to use `body` vs `body_path`, and directs users to `jira_comment_edit` for updating existing comments. This effectively differentiates from alternatives and prevents misuse.

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