jira_add_comment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that Markdown is auto-converted to ADF for Jira Cloud, but says nothing about permissions required, whether watchers are notified, or failure modes for an invalid issue key.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the format contract follows. The lengthy enumeration of Markdown constructs is somewhat redundant with the schema but stays on one coherent point.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the key inputs and the notable conversion behavior. It omits error handling and notification side effects, but nothing essential to calling it correctly 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 both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description restates the Markdown/ADF behavior and the key format, adding marginal value rather than new semantics; baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Add a new comment to a Jira issue'), names the lookup key ('by its key or numeric ID'), and lists target issue types. The word 'new' implicitly separates it from jira_update_comment, but no sibling is named, so it stops short of a 5.

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 prescribes a format for the body but never says when to use this tool versus jira_update_comment or any alternative, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions. Usage must be inferred from the name alone.

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