add_task_comment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It richly discloses that plain text is converted to GDC rich text, mentions are prepended as a highlighted line triggering notifications, mention placement is limited to the beginning, and non-member mentions cause an error listing possible members. This is exemplary 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 compact yet information-dense. Each sentence adds value, and the use of bold for emphasis and bullet-like structure aids scanning. There is no fluff, and the length is appropriate for the complexity of the mention behavior.

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 the tool's complexity (rich text conversion, mention parsing, notifications, error cases) and the presence of an output schema, the description is comprehensive. It covers input requirements, transformation rules, constraints on mention placement, and error behavior, leaving no significant gaps for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 thoroughly explains task_id (implicitly via 'task'), content (plain text vs HTML), and mentions (member names or user IDs, placement, notifications, error handling). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema types.

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 action: 'write a comment (mention) on a task' (태스크에 댓글(멘션)을 작성한다). It identifies the specific resource (task) and differentiates from sibling operations like listing, updating, or deleting comments by using the verb 'add' and explicitly covering mention creation.

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 clear usage context: required fields are listed, content format rules are given, and the mention behavior is explained. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but it implicitly distinguishes from comment read/update/delete siblings by focusing on creation and mention processing, which is sufficient for an agent to decide when to use this tool.

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