add_task_commentPost a comment on a specific task to report progress, answer questions, or hand off work in the task thread.
Post a comment on a task. Use to report progress, answer questions or hand off work in the task thread.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | Comment text | |
| taskId | Yes | Task to comment on | |
| isPrivate | No | Post as a private comment | |
| contentType | No | Default TEXT |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the action ('Post a comment') and gives use cases, but does not reveal side effects, permissions required, response behavior, rate limits, or any constraints beyond the schema. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap—similar to the update_drive calibration example.
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 two sentences with zero fluff. The core action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence provides useful usage context. Every word earns its place, making it efficiently scannable for an agent.
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 simplicity, the schema covers all parameters, and there is no output schema to describe. The description is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly—it knows the purpose, required parameters from the schema, and the communication context. It does not explain the relationship to list_task_comments, but that is not necessary for executing this tool.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., it doesn't clarify isPrivate behavior or contentType usage). It mentions 'task thread' but that relates to the tool's purpose rather than parameter semantics.
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: 'Post a comment on a task.' It also lists concrete use cases (report progress, answer questions, hand off work) that make the tool's role clear. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_task_comments (read-only) and create_task/update_task (task-level operations), so an agent can immediately identify the correct tool.
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 provides clear contextual usage: 'Use to report progress, answer questions or hand off work in the task thread.' This tells the agent when to apply the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusionary conditions (e.g., when to use list_task_comments instead), so it stops short of a perfect 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.