import_issue_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-but-not-destructive profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that — admin authorization requirement and the ability to set custom author/date (backdating) — but says nothing about idempotency, duplicate handling, or ordering effects of backdated timestamps.

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 tight sentence with the critical scope marker ('MIGRATION (admin)') front-loaded. No wasted words; every clause carries information, though it is arguably too terse for a 6-parameter import tool.

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 migration/import mutation with no output schema and annotations covering only the safety profile, the description supplies the essential context (admin-only, migration intent, custom author/date) but omits field-level behavior and any caveats about backdated data. Minimum viable 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 description coverage is only 33% (issueId and createdAt are the only documented properties). The description's 'custom author and date' loosely maps to createdBy/createdAt but leaves text, updatedAt, and updatedBy entirely unexplained in both schema and description. It does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (add) and resource (comment) and the special twist — custom author and date — plus a 'MIGRATION (admin)' scope tag. That scope tag implicitly distinguishes it from the regular add_comment sibling, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

'MIGRATION (admin)' signals the intended scenario (data migration, admin-only) and thereby implies normal commenting should use add_comment instead, but this is left to inference rather than stated. No explicit when-not or prerequisite text beyond the parenthetical.

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