yg_task_comment

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior, but it only states the action without mentioning side effects, authorization requirements, or idempotency. The agent gains no insight into permissions or consequences.

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 at one sentence, which is efficient but lacks structure. It does not present information in a scannable format, though brevity is a minor positive.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should indicate expected return value or errors, but it does not. Combined with minimal parameter info, the description fails to provide a complete picture for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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?

The description adds no value beyond the schema; parameter meanings are not explained beyond their names. Schema coverage is low (33%), and the description does not clarify required fields like text or taskId.

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 the action ('Post a comment') and the target ('task's chat'), making the tool's primary function unambiguous. However, it could be more explicit about the resource (e.g., 'creates a new comment in the task's chat thread').

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, such as yg_task_chat_get for reading messages or yg_task_update for modifying tasks. The description lacks context on prerequisites or typical use cases.

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