Add a comment to an approval

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, but the description adds only the authorization class, not behavioral traits like side effects or error conditions. For a write operation, more disclosure is expected; the description falls short.

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 very concise with two sentences, no wasted words. Purpose is front-loaded. However, the brevity leads to missing details; it could be slightly longer without losing conciseness.

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?

Although there is an output schema, the description does not mention return values or error responses. The tool has nested parameters and no parameter descriptions, so the description is incomplete for effective use. It fails to provide enough context for an AI agent to use it reliably.

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 coverage is 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions exist in the schema. The description does not explain the 'body' or 'path' parameters (e.g., what the comment body should contain or how to provide the approval ID). This is a critical gap, earning the lowest score.

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 'Add a comment to an approval', specifying the verb and resource. The title also reinforces this. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like pc_get_approvals_by_id_comments or pc_post_issues_by_id_comments, earning a 4 rather than 5.

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 includes the HTTP method and authorization class, which gives some context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., commenting on issues) and does not mention preconditions or exclusions. Thus, it is adequate but not comprehensive.

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