add_comment

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

Annotations already signal a mutating, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful behavioral context: mentions notify users and appear as @mentions, and attachments are not uploaded but referenced. However, it does not discuss return behavior, required permissions, or error conditions, so it is adequate but not particularly rich.

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?

Three concise sentences with the main action front-loaded and optional-parameter behavior explained efficiently. There is no wasted text; every sentence adds useful operational detail.

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 simple create operation with five flat, fully documented parameters and no nested objects or enums, the description is nearly complete. It states required context and clarifies the meaning of optional parameters. The only notable gap is that it doesn't describe the response object, but that is not essential for correct invocation.

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 schema already documents all parameters. The description mostly restates schema semantics (e.g., attachmentIds references already-uploaded files, mentionedUserIds are @mentions), without adding significant new meaning 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Post a comment on an item's thread.' This clearly identifies it as a create operation and distinguishes it from comment-management siblings like list_comments, update_comment, and delete_comment.

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 explains prerequisites (projectId and itemId) and optional behaviors (mentionedUserIds trigger notification, attachmentIds must reference already-uploaded files), but it never explicitly states when to prefer add_comment over alternatives or when not to use it. The usage context is implied rather than direct.

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