add_comment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly discloses that this operation writes to the real board, a meaningful side-effect warning, and identifies the authenticated user as the actor. It does not mention rate limits, permissions, or rollback, but the core mutation behavior is transparent.

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?

Two short sentences carry the essential information with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, and the important real-world side effect is stated immediately after.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with an output schema, the description is mostly complete: it states the action, actor, and live-write behavior. It does not mention how to source card_id or how this differs from update_card, but those details are reasonably inferable from the sibling list and schema.

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 indirectly maps text to the comment body and card_id to the target card, and 'authenticated user' clarifies attribution. However, it does not explicitly explain constraints, formats, or how to obtain a valid card_id.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'Post a comment on a card.' It also adds actor context ('as the authenticated user') and emphasizes a real side effect, which visually separates it from the read-only sibling tools and from card creation/update operations.

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, no reference to sibling tools, and no prerequisites such as 'requires an existing card_id.' The description provides context but leaves usage routing entirely implicit.

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