Add a comment to an issue

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false (write operation) and openWorldHint=true (possible side effects). The description adds the 'Authorization class: board_or_agent' detail, which is useful beyond annotations. However, it does not elaborate on side effects like notifications or state changes.

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 short but at the expense of omitting critical parameter and usage information. While it is front-loaded with the purpose, it lacks necessary detail, making it under-specification rather than 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?

Given the tool's complexity (2 required params, deeply nested body schema, open world hint), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain return values (output schema exists), role of parameters, or behavioral nuances. An output schema exists but is not described.

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%, and the description provides no information about parameters (e.g., that 'body' is required, nested structure, or meaning of fields like 'reopen', 'metadata'). The agent must infer entirely from the schema, which is complex.

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 issue,' which is a specific verb and resource. Among sibling tools like pc_get_issues_by_id_comments and pc_delete_issues_by_id_comments_by_comment_id, this tool's purpose is uniquely identified.

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 (e.g., when to add vs. retrieve or delete comments). Prerequisites like issue existence or user permissions are not mentioned.

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