Add review comment

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits: comments appear in get_work_packet.reviewComments, can send ticket back to next_task, and are recorded on audit history. Annotations are all false, so no contradiction; the description adds significant context beyond 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?

Three sentences provide all necessary information without redundancy. The first sentence states purpose, the second explains behavioral consequences, and the third mentions audit logging. No wasted words.

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 no output schema, the description covers input semantics, behavioral effects, and ties to other tools (get_work_packet, next_task). It is complete for an agent to understand when and why to use this tool.

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 67%, with some parameters described. The description adds context that the comment can be anchored to a file and line, and that it's PR-style review feedback. This adds moderate value 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 clearly states the verb 'attach', the resource 'ticket', and the optional anchoring to file and line. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_review_comments' and 'resolve_review_comment' by specifying the action.

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 explains that unresolved comments surface in the next work packet and, when ticket is in Review, send it back to queue. This provides clear context on when to use the tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the usage is well implied.

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