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 discloses markdown support and user mentioning format, which is helpful. However, it does not mention error handling, permissions, or response behavior beyond what is implied by 'adds a comment'. Given the simplicity, a score of 3 reflects adequate but not exhaustive transparency.

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 concise and well-structured: a single sentence for purpose, followed by parameter descriptions and a usage note. No extraneous information.

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 is simple with only two parameters and an output schema exists, the description covers the main points: required parameters, markdown support, and user mentions. It could mention that comments are appended to existing ones, but that is implied. Score 4 for being sufficiently complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It describes issue_key minimally as 'The ID or key of the issue.' but expands on comment with details about markdown and user tagging format. The description adds value over the schema by explaining the @[accountId] syntax and markdown features.

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 clearly states 'Adds a comment to a Jira issue.' which is a specific verb-resource combination. The tool name 'jira_add_comment' and the sibling tools 'jira_edit_comment', 'jira_delete_comment', 'jira_get_comments' make the distinction obvious.

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 does not explicitly compare with sibling tools or state when to use this vs alternatives. However, it provides a usage note for mentioning users and recommends calling jira_search_users first. The purpose is clear from the name, so a score of 3 is appropriate.

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