jira_add_comment

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose side effects (e.g., comment append), permissions required, or error behavior. The phrase 'plain-text' offers a minor detail but does not explain conversion to Atlassian Document Format as the schema does, nor any other behavioral traits.

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 a single concise sentence with a clear verb-object structure (`Add a plain-text comment to a Jira issue`). Every word is meaningful, and there is no redundant or irrelevant information.

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 simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers the core behavior adequately. However, it lacks any mention of what happens on success (e.g., return value) or edge cases, but for a simple mutation this is acceptable.

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 100% (both key and body are described). The description adds no parameter information beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. It merely reinforces the 'plain-text' aspect already implied by the schema's body description.

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 uses a specific verb 'Add' and clearly identifies the resource: 'a plain-text comment to a Jira issue'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like jira_create_issue (creates issues) and jira_update_issue (updates fields), making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The description merely states the action without contextualizing decision-making, such as when to choose this over jira_create_issue or jira_update_issue.

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