comment_on_pr

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds only 'markdown supported' as a behavioral trait, but does not mention permission requirements, side effects (e.g., comment appearing in PR activity), or any rate limits. Given the mutation nature of the tool, this is insufficient transparency.

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 concise and well-structured: a single purpose sentence followed by a clean Args list. Every line provides necessary information without waste, making it easy for an agent to quickly parse.

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 tool with 4 parameters and no annotations, the description covers purpose and parameter semantics adequately. However, it lacks explicit usage guidance, does not mention return values (though an output schema exists to cover that), and does not address any prerequisites or side effects beyond the action itself. It is adequate but has 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists all four parameters with brief but meaningful explanations (pr_id: PR ID number, body: Comment text (markdown supported), workspace: Workspace slug, repo: Repository slug). This adds value beyond the bare schema definitions, though the explanations are concise and not deeply detailed.

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 'Add a general comment to a pull request,' which uses a specific verb and resource. The phrase 'general comment' distinguishes it from sibling tools like inline_comment_on_pr and reply_to_pr_comment, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 implies usage for general PR comments ('general comment') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus inline_comment_on_pr or reply_to_pr_comment. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned, leaving usage guidance implicit rather than explicit.

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