add_comment

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

Annotations already signal non-read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral details: mentionedUserIds both notifies users and creates an @mention, attachmentIds reference already-uploaded files (not new uploads), and projectId/itemId are mandatory to scope the comment. These specifics go beyond the annotations and help the agent predict side effects.

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 extremely terse: four short sentences, each delivering distinct information. The core purpose is front-loaded, and there is no redundant phrasing or filler. Every clause earns its place.

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 simple create tool with 5 parameters, 3 required, and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: the action, notification behavior, attachment handling, and required IDs. It does not describe return values, but the absence of an output schema lowers that burden. Minor gaps like explicitly defining itemId as the target item are adequately covered by the phrase 'an item's thread.'

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 60%, leaving projectId and itemId undocumented. The description compensates by stating these are required, and also clarifies the semantics of mentionedUserIds (notify + @mention) and attachmentIds (already-uploaded files). This adds meaning beyond the raw schema, though projectId's exact role is still only implied by context.

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 opens with 'Post a comment on an item's thread,' which is a specific verb (post) and resource (comment on an item's thread). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_comment, list_comments, and delete_comment, leaving no ambiguity about its create semantics.

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 gives useful context for using the tool: how to notify people via mentionedUserIds, how to link attachments via attachmentIds, and which IDs are required. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like update_comment or delete_comment, nor does it mention any exclusions. The usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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