teamstorm_add_comment

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by warning that 'Repeating the call creates another comment,' making the non-idempotent behavior explicit. It also clarifies the write nature and content constraints without contradicting the 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 tight and well-structured: a clear primary instruction followed by concise content rules, explicit non-usage conditions, and a behavioral warning. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 two-parameter write tool, the description covers what to write, what not to write, when not to call it, and the effect of repeated calls. The existing output schema means return-value details need not be repeated, so nothing essential 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 0%, but the description compensates somewhat by explaining that text should contain only completed user-visible changes and public contracts. However, neither task_key nor text is explicitly described, and task_key format or source is left to inference.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Add a concise completion comment to an existing TeamStorm task.' This clearly identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from siblings like teamstorm_get_comments or teamstorm_update_task.

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 explicitly states when not to call the tool: when implementation is incomplete or the user asked not to write to TeamStorm. It also provides clear content inclusion and exclusion rules, which effectively guide the agent on appropriate usage.

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