jira_comment

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

With no annotations, the description fully covers behavioral aspects: it restricts editing/deleting to own comments and specifies markup format. It lacks some details like rate limits or response format, but for a CRUD tool, it is reasonably transparent.

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 three sentences, each carrying essential information. No filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and proceeds to key constraints. Exceptionally concise and well-structured.

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 (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the main functional aspects: operations, own-comment limitation, and markup. It could include an example or mention return values, but it is adequately complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 input schema already has 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds value by stating the default action and the own-comment restriction, which are not in the schema. It thus enhances understanding beyond the schema.

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 explicitly states the action: Add, update, or delete a comment on a Jira issue. It clearly identifies the resource (Jira issue comment) and the specific operations, distinguishing it from sibling tools like jira_get or jira_mutate.

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 specifies that action defaults to 'add', can only edit/delete own comments, and must use Jira wiki markup. This provides clear context for using the tool, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings.

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