op_add_comment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses the behavior of the 'internal' flag, notes the permission requirement ('add_internal_comments'), and describes the return format (JSON with id, text, author, date). This covers key behavioral traits, though it does not mention potential side effects or visibility rules beyond the permission note.

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 structured into a one-line summary, an 'Args' list, and a 'Returns' section. It is front-loaded, concise, and contains no fluff. Every sentence serves a purpose—introduction, parameter explanations, and return format—making it highly efficient.

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?

The tool is simple, has an output schema (so return values need minimal explanation), and the description covers all parameters and the key behavioral nuance (internal permission). It could go further by clarifying ownership or posting context, but for a straightforward add-comment operation, it provides sufficient context.

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 provides only types and titles (0% description coverage), so the description must add meaning. It does so for all three parameters: work_package_id (task ID), comment (text), and internal (internal comment with permission requirement). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 begins with a clear, specific verb and resource: 'Add a comment (note) to a task.' This directly distinguishes it from sibling tools that search, list, get, attach, or log time. It unambiguously states the tool's action and target.

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 context ('add a comment to a task') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or competing tools. Since the siblings are functionally distinct, the lack of explicit comparison is acceptable but still leaves room for guidance.

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