Comment on a task

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

With annotations indicating a non-readonly, non-destructive write, the description adds rich behavioral context: Markdown processing quirks (nested lists flattened with indent and markers), immutability of comments, and an idempotency guarantee on save failure ('never posted twice'). These details go well beyond the structured annotations.

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 four tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the core action. Each sentence delivers distinct, non-redundant information (purpose, formatting quirk, edit limitation, failure handling) without unnecessary filler.

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 this is a write operation with no output schema and rich annotations, the description covers all critical behavioral aspects: what it does, edge-case formatting, immutability, and failure recovery. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already defines all three parameters. The description adds meaningful semantics by explaining how the 'text' parameter's Markdown is processed (nested lists flattened) and clarifying the reply option, which affects how to format input beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Adds a Markdown comment to a task') and clarifies the optional reply scope. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'weeek_delete_comment' by explicitly naming it in the editing workaround.

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?

It clearly describes the primary use case (adding a comment, optionally as a reply) and provides explicit guidance for when editing is needed, directing to 'weeek_delete_comment' as the alternative. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool for other scenarios, but no other add-comment sibling exists.

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