Add comment

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Add a comment to an issue' and does not mention permissions, side effects, whether the comment is appended immediately, or what response to expect. For a mutation tool, this is a notable gap.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately concise for a straightforward action, though it sacrifices useful behavioral 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?

Given the low complexity, full parameter coverage, and no output schema, the definition is minimally viable. However, without annotations or usage guidance, an agent still lacks context about permissions, return values, and when this tool should be chosen over related comment tools.

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 parameters (body, issueKey, visibility) are already documented adequately. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, but the schema handles that baseline fully.

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 action ('Add') and a clear resource ('a comment to an issue'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. It implicitly differentiates from siblings like list_comments and delete_comment by focusing on creation, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or scope limitations.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_comments, delete_comment, or update_issue. The intended use is only implied by the action verb; there are no preconditions, exclusions, or examples.

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